Wk 7 Discussion 1 Conformity

People conform to social pressures for various reasons; perhaps they seek acceptance and approval, or they may conform because that is their natural preference. Conformity can be a good thing (e.g., conforming to workplace protocols builds group identity and cohesiveness); however, sometimes it is hard to explain the motive to conform when conformity means enduring something unpleasant or doing something that harms others. Conformity to fashion styles is one of the many examples of how the behavior of others can influence our own. Social psychologists are always seeking to understand how this influence can shape the choices that individuals make.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

“Beauty is pain”—this is a popular expression that grossly understates problems associated with some fashion trends. For some, wearing high heels (especially stilettos) can increase knee and hip pain and can cause lower back pain, stress fractures, blisters, corns, hammertoes, bunions, and toenail fungus (Basha, Devi, & Priya, 2018). High heels can also permanently alter the structure of the foot and the rest of the body.

Notwithstanding these problems, you will find stiletto heels are touted as the trendy footwear for women with fashion sense in most fashionable shoe stores. Indeed, millions of women everywhere wear high heels every day and love them. They are willing to spend a fortune and bear the pain. When asked why, the answer, more often than not, “they make me look thinner and my legs look longer.”

This week, you will analyze social conformity to popular trends and examine the reasons for conforming to authority.

Reference:
Basha, F. Y. S., Devi, R. G., & Priya, A. J. (2018). A survey on comparative effects of wearing high heels among long-term and short-term users. Drug Invention Today, 10(11), 2244–2248.

Discussion 1: Conformity

Fashion is a fascinating phenomenon, largely because people seem to conform to its dictates. Be it clothing, footwear, accessories, makeup, hairstyle, home décor, lifestyle, and even body styles, people tend to go along with the latest trends. Media fashion images are inescapable; at supermarket checkouts, fashion magazine covers feature perfectly dressed, coifed, accessorized women and tanned, broad-shouldered, men with six-pack abs and bulging biceps. Most people do not look like this—but they try to—as evidenced by the billions spent yearly on clothes, cosmetics, diet plans, and gym memberships.

For this Discussion, you will examine social conformity as it applies to fashion trends.

Review the Learning Resources related to conformity and think about how social psychology theory and research explain why women and men conform to the pressures of fashion, diet, body styles, and lifestyles.

Post Informed by social psychology theory and research, please explain why, health reasons aside, women and men conform to the pressure of fashion dictates. Explain the advantages and disadvantages of schemas.

Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the social psychology theory and research. In addition to the Learning Resources, search the Walden Library and/or Internet for peer-reviewed articles to support your post and responses. Use proper APA format and citations, including those in the Learning Resources.

Going Along Versus Going Alone: When Fundamental Motives Facilitate
Strategic (Non)Conformity

Vladas Griskevicius, Noah J. Goldstein, Chad R. Mortensen, Robert B. Cialdini, and Douglas T. Kenrick
Arizona State University

Three experiments examined how 2 fundamental social motives—self-protection and mate attraction—
influenced conformity. A self-protective goal increased conformity for both men and women. In contrast,
the effects of a romantic goal depended on sex, causing women to conform more to others’ preferences
while engendering nonconformity in men. Men motivated to attract a mate were particularly likely to
nonconform when (a) nonconformity made them unique (but not merely a member of a small minority)
and when (b) the topic was subjective versus objective, meaning that nonconformists could not be
revealed to be incorrect. These findings fit with a functional evolutionary model of motivation and
behavior, and they indicate that fundamental motives such as self-protection and mate attraction can
stimulate specific forms of conformity or nonconformity for strategic self-presentation.

Keywords: nonconformity, mating goals, fear, self-presentation, social influence

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
pause and reflect.

—Mark Twain

Imagine that Solomon, a young professor, and three of his male
colleagues meet for dinner at a new restaurant. Inspecting the slate
of delectable dishes on the menu, the young professor soon finds
himself in a dilemma: What should he order? His new colleagues,
however, are unanimous in their selections: Eerily reminiscent of
a scene from a classic social psychological study, one by one, each
man confidently orders the same item. Considering the choices of
the group, how do you think Solomon will order?

Over half a century of research on conformity informs us that
people are heavily influenced by the actions and beliefs of others
(Asch, 1956; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Moscovici, 1985;
Sherif, 1936). Given that the young professor is likely motivated to
gain the approval of his colleagues (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)
and to make a good decision (White, 1959), conformity would help
him realize each of these general goals (Cialdini & Trost, 1998;
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Goldstein & Cialdini, in press). In fact,
the restaurant predicament is teeming with factors that make
conformity especially probable: The decision is public (Argyle,
1957; Campbell & Fairey, 1989); the professor finds the group
desirable (Dittes & Kelley, 1956); the group is composed of no
fewer than three individuals (Asch, 1956; Milgram, Bickman, &
Berkowitz, 1969); the group’s opinion is unanimous (Asch, 1956);

the other group members are similar to the professor (Festinger,
1954; Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2006; Hornstein, Fisch,
& Holmes, 1968); and he is uncertain about his decision (Tesser,
Campbell, & Mickler, 1983).

However, what if, in the process of ordering, the young profes-
sor’s attention is suddenly drawn to the beautiful waitress awaiting
his selection? Despite the presence of numerous factors known to
spur conformity, going along with his rivals in front of a potential
mate is unlikely to draw her attention or impress her (Buss, 2003;
Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). In fact, the goal of attracting a
romantic partner may be more effectively served through deliber-
ate nonconformity, which can make a man stand out as indepen-
dent and assertive (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Simpson, Gang-
estad, Christensen, & Leck, 1999). Now consider what would
happen if the group was composed of young women who were
being served by an attractive male waiter. Would a woman dining
with her female colleagues also nonconform when she is motivated
to attract a potential romantic partner?

Sizable literatures indicate that people harbor predilections both
to stand out and to fit in (e.g., Brewer, 1991; Maslach, Stapp, &
Santee, 1985; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). Given these often-
competing tendencies, the present research examines how certain
powerful human motives can influence people’s tendency to stand
out through nonconformity or to fit in through conformity. More
specifically, in three experiments, we investigate how conformity
and nonconformity may be influenced by two fundamental social
motives: the goal to attract a mate and the goal to protect oneself
from danger (Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003; Maner et al., 2005). In
addition to examining potential sex differences, the studies also
aim to elucidate the psychological processes by which fundamen-
tal motives can elicit differential tendencies to conform.

Conformity and Motivation

Conformity is behavioral change designed to match or imitate
the beliefs, expectations, or behaviors of real or imagined others
(Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Decades of research have shown that
conformity is highly prevalent (see Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004)

Vladas Griskevicius, Noah J. Goldstein, Chad R. Mortensen, Robert B.
Cialdini, and Douglas T. Kenrick, Department of Psychology, Arizona
State University.

This research was facilitated by National Science Foundation Graduate
Research Fellowships awarded to Vladas Griskevicius and Noah J. Gold-
stein and by National Institutes of Health Grant 5R01MH64734 awarded to
Douglas T. Kenrick. We thank Josh Ackerman for his helpful comments on
a previous version of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vladas
Griskevicius, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85287-1104. E-mail: vladasg@asu.edu

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association
2006, Vol. 91, No. 2, 281–294 0022-3514/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.

281

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t i

s
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
o

ne
o

f i
ts

a
lli

ed
p

ub
lis

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
tic

le
is

in
te

nd
ed

s
ol

el
y

fo
r t

he
p

er
so

na
l u

se
o

f t
he

in
di

vi
du

al
u

se
r a

nd
is

n
ot

to
b

e
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
b

ro
ad

ly
.

and that the tendency to imitate is sometimes so swift and mindless
that it is almost automatic (Bremner, 2002; Chartrand & Bargh,
1999; Gopnik, Meltzhoff, & Kuhl, 1999). One reason why con-
formity is so ubiquitous is that it is often adaptive: Following
others often leads to better and more accurate decisions, especially
when we face uncertainty (Cialdini, 2001; Crutchfield, 1955;
Mackie, 1987). This kind of accuracy-based conformity is known
as informational influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), and it per-
sists because in many cases it is the most efficient form of
behaving (Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999). Consistent with the under-
lying accuracy function of informational influence, when people
have an elevated motivation to be accurate and find themselves in
relatively ambiguous situations, conformity becomes increasingly
likely (Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman, 1996; Levine, Higgins, &
Choi, 2000).

A second underlying reason why people tend to conform is that
going along with or mimicking another person tends to produce
liking (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson,
1993). This kind of approval-based conformity is known as nor-
mative influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), and it serves to
facilitate the goal of affiliation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Insko,
Drenan, Solomon, Smith, & Wade, 1983; Martin & Hewstone,
2003). Normative influence is especially potent because people
who deviate from the group are more likely to be punished,
ridiculed, and even rejected by other group members (Janes &
Olson, 2000; Kruglanski & Webster, 1991; Levine, 1989; Miller &
Anderson, 1979; Schachter, 1951). For example, in the classic
Asch (1956) line studies, participants tended to conform with the
group not necessarily because they believed the consensus of the
group reflected the correct response but often because it was easier
to go with the crowd than to face the consequences of going
against it (Crutchfield, 1955). Correspondingly, when people have
a heightened desire to affiliate with a group, mimicry tends to
increase (e.g., Lakin & Chartrand, 2003).

Although conformity can confer numerous benefits on an indi-
vidual, nonconformity can also be advantageous (e.g., Argyle,
1957; Hollander, 1958). Nonconformity includes two types of
behavior: (a) independence, or resisting influence; and (b) anti-
conformity, or rebelling against influence (Nail, MacDonald, &
Levy, 2000; Willis, 1963). Both types of nonconformity tend to be
effective in differentiating people from others, which can satisfy a
need for individuation or uniqueness (Maslach et al., 1985; Snyder
& Fromkin, 1980). For example, when a person’s uniqueness is
threatened by an encounter with a highly similar individual, such
a situation increases the tendency to nonconform (Duval, 1972;
Weir, 1971, as cited in Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). Given that both
conformity and nonconformity can be beneficial, this duality raises
an important question: What contexts will lead to the emergence of
conformity, and what situations will facilitate nonconformity? The
answer may depend on the person’s currently active goal.

Fundamental Social Motives

Our perceptions, cognitions, and behavior are profoundly influ-
enced— both consciously and nonconsciously— by a large variety
of goals and need states (e.g., Bargh, 1990; Chartrand & Bargh,
2002; Simpson et al., 1999). From an evolutionary perspective, the
goals and motives having the most immediate impact on behavior
are likely to be those that, over the course of human evolutionary
history, have been most closely linked to adaptive outcomes in

social groups, such as attracting and retaining mates, protecting
oneself from danger, and attaining and maintaining status (Bugen-
tal, 2000; Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003).

Empirical investigations based on this perspective have ad-
dressed various questions in psychology and have found evidence
consistent with this framework (e.g., Cosmides & Tooby, 1992;
Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Haselton & Buss, 2000; Maner et al.,
2005; Todd & Gigerenzer, 2000). Although there are good theo-
retical reasons to believe that an evolutionary perspective could
enrich the understanding of social influence processes, there is thus
far almost no empirical work that has done so (Sundie, Cialdini,
Griskevicius, & Kenrick, in press). The present research was
aimed to bridge social influence research and evolutionary psy-
chological models by examining how two fundamental social
motives—protecting oneself from harm and seeking a romantic
partner—influence people’s tendency to conform. Self-protection
and mating goals are central to survival and reproduction, and as
we discuss below, each goal may lead to different patterns of
responding to social influence attempts.

Self-Protective Motivation and Conformity

We are here today because our ancestors were successful at
navigating through the dangers posed by everyday life, making
decisions that served their self-protective interests. A long history
of research suggests that stimuli indicating the presence of danger
acutely activate a self-protective goal and an associated pattern of
affect (Plutchik, 1980); this goal then efficiently facilitates percep-
tions, cognitions, and behaviors associated with greater survival
success in ancestral environments (Maner et al., 2005; & Öhman &
Mineka, 2001; Schaller, 2003; Schaller et al., 2004). Many self-
protective behaviors involve group-cohesive processes (Taylor et
al., 2000). To increase the probability of survival, many species of
animals, for instance, often strategically mimic others (Wickler,
1968), and individuals tend to herd together to be less conspicuous
when threatened by a predator (Hamilton, 1971). Mimicry and
imitation have been posited to serve a similar safety-enhancing
function in humans (Dijksterhuis, Bargh, & Miedema, 2000),
suggesting that a motive to protect oneself from danger may
facilitate actions designed to avoid standing out of a crowd.

Dangerous situations also induce stress and anxiety, which tend
to increase the need to affiliate in both human and nonhuman
animals (e.g., Schachter, 1959; Taylor et al., 2000). The need to
affiliate in times of danger is consistent with findings from terror
management theory, which show that people’s desire to affiliate
tends to increase after they consider the frightening thought of
their own death (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Soloman, 1997; Wis-
man & Koole, 2003). In summary, research in several areas sug-
gests that when a self-protective motive is active, people should be
more likely to go along with the group either to affiliate or to avoid
drawing attention to themselves.

Mate-Attraction Motivation and Conformity

Survival is necessary, but not sufficient, for evolutionary suc-
cess. Besides surviving, our ancestors were also all successful at
reproduction. Not surprisingly, people’s cognitions and behaviors
are strongly affected by motivational states specifically linked to
reproduction. Stimuli indicating the potential for reproductive suc-
cess tend to activate a mating goal and its associated affective

282 GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.

responses (Scott, 1980); this goal in turn facilitates perceptions,
cognitions, and behaviors associated with greater mating success
in ancestral environments (Griskevicius, Cialdini, & Kenrick,
2006; Maner et al., 2005; Roney, 2003; Wilson & Daly, 2004).
One key to successfully attracting a mate is taking opportunities to
positively differentiate oneself from one’s rivals (Buss, 2003); and
nonconforming can be an effective method to attract attention and
to show a distinction between a person and the larger group
(Ridgeway, 1978; Schachter, 1951). Thus, it is possible that a
mating motive could lead people to go against the group in order
to stand out.

Because men and women tend to prefer slightly different char-
acteristics in a romantic partner, men and women seeking to attract
a mate may also differ in exactly how and to what extent they will
attempt to stand out from their rivals (Barkow, 1989). Traits that
women prefer in a mate include willingness to take risks, deci-
siveness, assertiveness, independence, and general characteristics
of leadership (Buss, 2003; Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987).
Notably, these are all characteristics that can be conveyed by
nonconforming with a group of potential rivals (e.g., by disagree-
ing with the group). In contrast, traits that men prefer in a mate
focus less on social dominance and more on agreeableness and the
mate’s ability to facilitate group cohesion (Campbell, 2002). Not
only may the successful display of these traits be undermined by
going against the group, but conforming more to the group may
actually lead a woman to appear more agreeable while facilitating
group cohesiveness.

Consistent with these differentially preferred characteristics in
men and women, research indicates that women are more con-
cerned than men about the quality of interpersonal relationships,
group cohesiveness, and the development of shared norms in a
group (Eagly, 1978; Eder & Sandford, 1986). Correspondingly,
not only do men have a higher drive to display independence and
distinctiveness in a group (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Cross &
Madson, 1997), but women are much quicker to shun female group
mates who act against group norms (Goodwin, 1990). Thus, given
differing mate preferences for men and women, it is likely that a
motive to attract a mate should produce nonconformity for men,
but a mate-attraction motive should actually produce more con-
formity for women.

Positive and Negative Group Judgments

When one faces the choice of publicly going along with or going
against the preferences of the group, this decision is likely to
depend on the nature of the group’s preference. Consider, for
example, a situation in which a person is visually inspecting an
unusual painting at a museum with a group of acquaintances.
Before the person decides to conform or nonconform from the
group’s opinion of the painting, it may be important for him or her
to consider first whether the others’ consensus is that they like or
dislike the painting—that is, whether the group judgment is pos-
itive or negative. For the individual in the museum, stating that he
likes a unique painting is likely to convey positive dispositional
information (i.e., “I am generally positive about novel things like
paintings”); whereas stating that he dislikes the painting may
convey a negative disposition (i.e., “I am generally negative about
novel things like paintings”).

Given that a mating motive is likely to make people sensitive to
self-presentation (Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 2003), and given that

both sexes value some degree of agreeableness in a mate (Green &
Kenrick, 1994), mating motives are likely to lead both men and
women to present themselves as positive and likable individuals.
However, the ability to convey positive dispositional information
through conformity or nonconformity hinges on whether the judg-
ment of the group is positive or negative. Consider again the
museum situation from a man’s perspective. If the group decries
the painting as plebeian and amateur (a negative judgment), the
man can convey a positive disposition by going against the group.
However, if the group praises the painting’s penetrating genius (a
positive judgment), going against the group does not convey a
positive disposition. Thus, although a mate-attraction motive
should produce male nonconformity when the group judgment is
negative (thereby allowing a man to convey both independence
and positive dispositional information by going against the group),
the effects of the mating motive should be muted for men when the
group judgment is positive (resulting in a conflict between wanting
to appear independent and to appear positive).

Whether the group judgment is positive or negative should also
influence when mating motives should lead women to conform
more. When the group judgment is positive, a woman can convey
a positive disposition by going along with the group. However,
when the group judgment is negative, going along with the group
does not convey positive information. Thus, although a mate-
attraction motive should lead women to conform more when the
group judgment is positive (thereby allowing a woman to convey
positive dispositional information by going along with the group),
the effects of the mating motive for women should be muted when
the group judgment is negative.

Study 1

The initial study examined how two fundamental social
goals—a motive for self-protection and a motive to attract a
mate—influence men and women’s tendency to conform in a
same-sex group (as compared with people primed with neutral
motives). Self-protection and mate-attraction motives were primed
through short imagination scenarios. Afterward, conformity was
measured by the degree to which the positive versus negative
judgment of the group influenced participants’ ratings of a painting
(see Mucchi-Faina, Maass, & Volpato, 1991).

We hypothesized that, when a self-protective mindset was
primed, men and women’s conformity would increase. Moreover,
this increase in conformity was predicted to persist regardless of
whether the group judgment was positive or negative. Regarding
mate-attraction motives, different predictions were made for men
and women. For men, we predicted that a mating mindset would
produce nonconformity primarily when the group judgment is
negative, which would enable men who go against the group to
appear independent and convey a positive disposition. For women,
we predicted that a mating motive should produce more confor-
mity primarily when the group judgment is positive, which would
allow women who go along with the group to appear more agree-
able and convey a positive disposition.

Method

Participants

Two hundred thirty-seven participants (113 male, 124 female) were
recruited from introductory psychology classes as partial fulfillment of

283FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES AND CONFORMIT

their class requirement. All participants came to the lab in same-sex groups
of 3– 6 and were seated at private computers that were visually shielded
from others by partitions. The mean age for women was 19.2 (SD � 1.6),
and the mean age for men was 19.8 (SD � 1.9).

Design and Procedure

The study design was a between-participants 2 (participant sex) � 4
(motive prime: mate attraction, self-protection, “scenario” control, or “no-
prime” control) � 2 (group judgment: positive vs. negative) design. In the
first part of the study, participants rated the attractiveness of multiple
images that they believed were used to establish their aesthetic preferences.
After the ratings, they underwent one of the four priming manipulations.
After the prime, participants entered a computer chat room with 3 same-sex
individuals with whom they believed they would later have a face-to-face
discussion on aesthetic preferences. In the chat room, they publicly rated
one of the images that they had previously rated on how interesting or
uninteresting they believed it to be. Half of the time the ratings of the other
3 group members were programmed to be positive, and half of the time the
group judgment was negative. The chat room was arranged so that the
participant was always the last person in the group to provide a public
rating.

Conformity measure. The purpose of the first part of the study was to
ascertain the participants’ actual private preferences for a specific artistic
image that would later serve as the key image of interest in the chat room
(with the initial private rating of the image serving as a covariate for the
chat-room rating of the image). To reduce pressures to be consistent
between the private and the public ratings, and to decrease possible
suspiciousness, participants also rated 39 distracter images on the extent to
which they thought each image was interesting. The images were collected
from the Internet and consisted of various complex and simple graphic
artistic designs and abstract paintings. Ratings were provided on a 9-point
scale ranging from 1 (not at all interesting) to 9 (very interesting). Partic-
ipants were led to believe that the 40 images were part of a much larger set
and that other participants were likely rating a different set of images. Their
ratings for the 40 images indicated a wide range of preferences. However,
the mean rating for the key image was 5.00 (SD � 1.71), which was at the
midpoint of the scale.

After the private ratings, participants were informed that there was
another group of participants in a different room that was also currently
working on the same study. They were then told that they had been
randomly assigned to a group of four same-sex participants from the two
rooms, and the group was linked together by computer in a virtual chat
room. Participants were told that in the second half of the study, all 4
members of their group would meet face to face to discuss their individual
aesthetic preferences. The chat room was ostensibly the first step in the
group discussion and served to publicly ascertain everyone’s aesthetic
preferences, which would be the focus of the later discussion. This part of
the procedure was designed to ensure that participants were accountable for
their responses in the chat room because they might later need to justify
their responses in the face-to-face discussion.

In the chat room, participants again rated their preferences for the key
image. They were led to believe that the image was randomly chosen by the
computer and that it might not have been previously seen by them or their
3 group mates. However, it was arranged so that, as participants rated the
image, they could see on the screen the ratings of their group members,
who were programmed to provide their ratings before the participants. Half
of the time, the group judgment was positive (8, 8, 7), indicating that they
thought the image was highly interesting; the other half of the time, group
judgment was negative (2, 2, 3), indicating that they thought the image was
very uninteresting. The rating of the image constituted the dependent
measure of the study. Given that participants had no prior interaction with
their group mates, their public rating of the image in the chat room was the
first piece of information they conveyed about themselves to the group.

Priming procedure. Just before participants entered the chat room,
they underwent a focusing task that served as the motive prime manipu-

lation. In the task, they read one of three short scenarios that were designed
to activate a self-protection, a mate-attraction, or a neutral motive. Each of
the three scenarios was of similar length (about 850 words) and contained
the same instructions: “Please carefully read the following scenario. As you
read, try to imagine yourself in the scenario and create a vivid mental
picture.”

In the self-protective scenario, participants imagined being in a house
alone late at night. As the scenario progressed, they overheard scary noises
outside and believed that someone had entered the house. After calling out
and receiving no reply, the story ended as someone was about to enter the
bedroom. In the mate-attraction scenario, participants imagined being on
vacation with their friends. While on vacation, the reader met a highly
desirable person of the opposite sex and spent a romantic day with the new
romantic interest. The scenario ended as the two people were passionately
kissing on a moonlit beach and feeling a strong desire to be with each
other.1

The study had two separate control conditions: a scenario control and a
no-prime control. In the scenario control, participants read a scenario
similar in length to the other two scenarios, except that it was devoid of
threat- or romance-inducing content. In the control scenario, participants
imagined getting ready to go to a much-anticipated concert with a same-sex
friend. They imagined that, during the night of the show, they could not
find the concert tickets. Later, the friend arrived with the tickets, and they
both headed off to the show anticipating a delightful musical experience. In
the no-prime control, participants went to the chat room without reading
any scenario. The no-prime control was not expected to produce different
levels of conformity, compared with the scenario control. However, having
both control conditions ensured that any potential differences in conformity
between the control and the substantive motive conditions were not pro-
duced by the specific contents of the control scenario.

To assess whether the three different scenarios were effective at induc-
ing the desired motives and their associated affective states, a separate
group of 46 male and female participants underwent one of the three
scenario prime manipulations. Immediately afterward, they indicated the
extent to which they were experiencing threat, a desire to protect them-
selves, romantic arousal, and a desire to attract a romantic partner. Re-
sponses to these items were measured using 7-point Likert scales ranging
from 1 (not at all) and 7 (very much). There were no interactions or main
effects involving participant sex, indicating that the scenarios had a similar
effect on men and women. As seen in Table 1, the self-protection scenario
elicited significantly more feelings of threat and a stronger desire to protect
oneself, compared with either the control condition or the mate-attraction
condition ( ps � .001). Conversely, the mate-attraction scenario elicited
significantly more romantic arousal and a stronger desire to attract a
romantic partner, compared with either the control condition or the self-
protection condition ( ps � .001). Thus, both the self-protection and the
mate-attraction scenarios were effective at inducing the intended motives
and associated affective states.

Results

We measured the extent of participants’ conformity by exam-
ining the degree to which their public ratings of the target image
were influenced by the ratings of their 3 group mates. Half the
time, the ratings of the group were high (8, 8, 7), indicating a
positive group judgment; half the time, the ratings were low (2, 2,
3), indicating a negative group judgment. Conformity by the
participants in the former case was signified by higher ratings;
conformity in the latter case was signified by lower ratings. For the
statistical analyses, all ratings were standardized, whereby a higher

1 The mate-attraction prime did not suggest that this encounter was a
brief romantic fling, nor did the prime suggest that the encounter was the
beginning of a meaningful relationship.

284 GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

rating by participants always constituted more conformity, regard-
less of whether group judgment was positive or negative.

The means for the conformity measure in the control conditions
were all above the midpoint of 5.0, indicating that there was some
degree of conformity in the control conditions as would be ex-
pected. Analyses indicated that there were no significant differ-
ences in conformity in either of the two control conditions between
men and women. As expected, the two control conditions also did
not significantly differ from one another, and the control condi-

tions were thus combined for the remainder of the analyses. To test
the specific hypotheses of the study, we performed a series of
planned contrasts, all using the preimage ratings as covariates.

Conformity and Self-Protection

It was predicted that a self-protective prime (compared with a
control condition) would produce a significant increase in confor-
mity for both sexes. As seen on the left side of Figure 1, a planned
contrast comparing conformity in the control and the self-
protection conditions indicated that this was indeed the case, F(1,
160) � 4.78, p � .030, �2 � .029. Also consistent with predic-
tions, the effects of the self-protection prime did not differ for men
and women, and the effects of the prime remained similar regard-
less of whether the group judgment was positive or negative ( ps �
.50). Thus, a state of threat produced an increase in conformity for
both men and women, and this increase was unaffected by the
valence of the group judgment.

Conformity and Mate Attraction

The effects of a mate-attraction prime (compared with a control)
were predicted to be different for men and women. Consistent with
this prediction, results indicated a significant two-way interaction
with motive and participant sex, F(1, 177) � 6.33, p � .013, �2 �
.035. For men, it was predicted that a mating prime would produce
less conformity, compared with the control, when group judgment
was negative but not necessarily produce less conformity when
group judgment was positive. Consistent with this prediction,
results indicated a two-way interaction with motive and group

Table 1
Mean Self-Reported Affect and Motivation for All Motive Prime
Scenarios

Affect/motivation item
Control

(n � 16)
Self-protection

(n � 15)

Mate
attraction
(n � 15)

Threat
M 2.00 5.20* 1.47
SD 0.89 1.74 0.92

Desire to protect yourself
M 2.31 5.53* 2.07
SD 1.30 1.64 1.67

Romantic arousal
M 1.63 1.53 5.00*
SD 0.96 1.25 1.81

Desire to attract romantic
partner

M 1.94 1.20 5.33*
SD 1.57 0.56 1.91

* p � .001, indicates diference from control scenario.

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

+0.50

+1.00
SELF-PROTECTION MATE-ATTRACTION

Positive Negative Positive Negative

PRIMED MOTIVE

MEN

WOMEN

Equal to
Control

GROUP EVALUATION

E
X

T
E

N
T

O
F

C
O

N
F

O
R

M
IT

Figure 1. Effects of self-protection or mate-attraction motives on conformity depending on whether group
judgment was positive versus negative (Study 1, adjusted means). Positive values denote an increase in
conformity relative to the control; negative values denote a decrease in conformity relative to the control, or
nonconformity.

285FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES AND CONFORMITY

judgment for men, F(1, 173) � 6.62, p � .011, �2 � .037. As seen
on the right side of Figure 1, when group judgment was negative,
a mate-attraction prime led men to conform significantly less than
men in the control condition, F(1, 44) � 9.57, p � .003, �2 �
.179. However, when the group judgment was positive, there was
no difference between the mating and the control conditions for
men ( p � .95). Thus, mating motives led men to go against the
group specifically when group judgment was negative, meaning
that nonconformity could be used to convey positive dispositional
information.

For women, it was predicted that a mating prime would lead
them to conform more primarily when group judgment was posi-
tive. Although the two-way interaction with motive and group
judgment for women was not significant, F(1, 173) � 1.64, p �
.20, as seen in Figure 1, women in the mating condition did
conform somewhat more than women in the control condition
when group judgment was positive, F(1, 41) � 3.61, p � .064,
�2 � .081. However, when group judgment was negative, the
romantic prime had no effect on women’s conformity relative to
the control ( p � .70). Thus, a romantic mindset led women to
conform somewhat more primarily when group judgment was
positive, meaning that higher conformity could convey positive
dispositional information about the women.

Discussion

Study 1 showed that temporarily activating different fundamen-
tal social motives produced different and theoretically meaningful
tendencies toward conformity and nonconformity for men and
women. As predicted, a motive to protect oneself from danger—
even imagined danger—led both men and women to conform
more. Being in a state of fear produced more conformity regardless
of whether the group judgment was positive or negative. That is,
participants conformed more regardless of whether they would be
conveying positive or negative dispositional information.

In contrast to a self-protection goal, a motive to attract a mate
not only produced different effects for men and women, but each
of these effects was qualified by whether the group judgment was
positive or negative. For men, a romantic prime produced noncon-
formity specifically when the judgment of the rest of the group was
negative. That is, a mating motive led men to go against the group
when nonconformity could convey positive information about the
men (e.g., “I am the type of person who generally likes novel
things and I am independent”). However, when the group judg-
ment was positive and nonconformity could not be used to convey
positive information, the power of the mating motive to engender
nonconformity was muted. For women, a romantic prime produced
a trend toward more conformity specifically when the judgment of
the group was positive. That is, a mating motive led women to go
along with the group somewhat more when conformity could
convey positive information about them. However, when group
judgment was negative and conformity could not convey positive
information, the power of the mating motive to increase women’s
conformity was muted.

These findings are consistent with an evolutionary functional
perspective of social influence (Sundie et al., in press). It is also
notable that a mating prime produced these sex-specific (non)con-
formity effects even when the group was composed of same-sex
individuals. That is, even in a situation that did not directly involve
attracting a mate, simply being in a mate-attraction mindset pro-

duced functional patterns of conformity. This finding suggests that
priming a fundamental social motive, such as mate attraction, may
activate a specific mental set that serves to facilitate cognitions and
behaviors in a relatively automatic manner. It also is consistent
with the possibility that males compete with one another for status,
and that females are not so much directly attracted to the compet-
itiveness per se but to the indirect result—that is, to status as
reflected in relative standing among other males (Sadalla et al.,
1987).

Study 2

The initial study showed that, when men were primed with a
motive to attract a mate, they tended to go against the group (at
least when group judgment was negative). Although this tendency
to nonconform for men makes sense from a consideration of sex
differences between mating and the desire to appear independent,
men’s nonconformity is nevertheless puzzling. Given that confor-
mity is generally adaptive because it leads to increased accuracy in
decision making, men’s tendency to nonconform indicates that
mating motives appear to lead men to behave less adaptively by
disregarding any potential gains in accuracy afforded by confor-
mity. From a functional perspective, however, this perplexing
dilemma might be better understood if one considers the content of
the topic on which a person is likely to be nonconforming.

A closer look at conformity and minority influence research
reveals a potentially crucial distinction in the kinds of content that
are generally used across studies: Sometimes the topic is subjec-
tive (e.g., preferences, opinions), and at other times it is objective
(e.g., trivia questions; see Maass, Volpato, & Mucchi-Faina,
1996). Conformity pressures operate both when topics are subjec-
tive (e.g., Allen, 1975; Santee & Maslach, 1982) and objective
(e.g., Sherif, 1936). However, there is a key difference between the
two types of content: A subjective quandary by definition does not
have a verifiably correct answer, whereas an objective predicament
does. For instance, consider the objective dilemma in the TV game
show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?: Contestants unsure of an
answer to a multiple-choice question can poll audience members
for their responses; although the audience is never unanimous, the
response favored by the majority tends to be correct over 90% of
the time, and it is almost always chosen by the contestant (Sur-
owiecki, 2005).

A situation with an objectively optimal solution, therefore,
introduces the powerful self-presentational consideration of being
perceived as right (as well as the objective benefit of avoiding a
faulty choice). Indeed, the self-presentational and objective bene-
fits of being verifiably correct on an issue should outweigh those
of being merely like or unlike the majority. After all, someone who
nonconforms on a topic, but is shown to be objectively wrong in
his or her choice, is hardly likely to make a favorable impression
on a romantic candidate. Thus, we may expect that, in contrast to
Study 1, in which the topic was subjective, when a topic has an
objective, demonstrably correct position, mating motives should
lead both men and women to conform more to the majority view,
because the majority typically counsels correctly in such matters
(Laughlin, Zander, Knievel, & Tan, 2003; Surowiecki, 2005).

Study 2 tested how a motive to attract a mate would influence
men’s and women’s conformity on subjective versus objective
topics (compared with participants primed with a neutral motive).
Unlike in Study 1, in which the group could indicate a positive or

286 GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

a negative judgment, the conformity situations in the present study
were constructed in a way that neutralized the role of whether
(non)conformity would convey positive versus negative disposi-
tional information. As in Study 1, it was predicted that when the
topic was subjective, a mating prime would lead men to noncon-
form and would lead women to conform more. In contrast, when
the topic was objective, it was predicted that a mating motive
would lead to a general increase in conformity. To broaden the
findings from the initial study, we used a new set of conformity
measures. In addition, we examined whether the predicted effects
would persist when responses were private and could not directly
be seen by others.

Method
Participants

Sixty-nine participants (38 male, 31 female) were recruited from intro-
ductory psychology classes as partial fulfillment of a class requirement. As
in Study 1, participants came in groups and were seated a computer.

Design and Procedure

The study used a 2 (participant sex) � 2 (motive prime: mating vs.
control) � 2 (topic: subjective vs. objective) mixed-factorial design; par-
ticipant sex and prime were between-participants factors, and topic was a
within-participants factor. After they entered the laboratory, participants
underwent the same mating and control prime procedure from Study 1.
(Given that there was no difference between the no-prime and scenario
controls in Study 1, only the scenario control was used in Study 2.) After
the prime manipulation, participants responded to a six-question survey in
which they could see the percentages of previous survey takers who had
selected certain responses. Participants’ responses to the survey items
constituted the dependent measure of conformity in the study.

Of the six survey items, three items were subjective and three were
objective. All of the subjective items asked participants for their preference
between two choices that, within our sample population, were deemed
relatively similar to each other: (a) a Mercedes-Benz or a BMW luxury car;
(b) a silver or forest green car color; (c) and a Ferrari or a Lamborghini
sports car. Asking participants to select a preference between two similarly
desirable items enabled us to neutralize the positivity/negativity dimension
that moderated the effects of the mating prime in Study 1. That is, in Study
2, neither conformity nor nonconformity could convey positive versus
negative information about the participant.

Each of the three objective items asked participants a factual question,
and they were provided with two possible responses, one of which was
correct: (a) Do you think it’s more expensive to live in New York City or
in San Francisco? (b) Which airline has more on-time arrivals, Southwest
or America West? (c) Which color shirt is better at keeping a person cool
in the sun, green or blue? These items were chosen because any given
participant in our sample would generally not know the correct answer to
these questions, but he or she should believe that a majority response would
likely constitute the correct answer. All six items were presented in random
order, and participants had to indicate their responses on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 (definitely Option A) to 7 (definitely Option B) at the
endpoints.

Participants were informed that over 100 students had already taken the
survey and that the responses of previous students would be visible during
the time of the survey. They were told that this information was simply a
by-product of the survey software and that they should be free to ignore it.
For each item, participants could see the percentages of respondents who
had chosen either of the two possible options for a given question (e.g.,
70%/30%). The percentages for the six items indicated that a substantial
majority (between 72% and 89%) had selected one of the two responses.

The pairings of the majority responses with the specific survey items and
the specific responses within each item were counterbalanced.

Results

As in the first study, all the counterbalanced items were stan-
dardized, whereby a higher number indicated more conformity
regardless of which particular response was favored by the major-
ity. A test of possible sex differences in the control condition
indicated no significant differences in conformity for men and
women. It was predicted that the mating prime would produce
different patterns of conformity for men and women and that these
patterns would be qualified by whether the topic was objective or
subjective. Consistent with this prediction, a repeated-measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with participant sex, motive, and
topic produced a significant three-way interaction, F(1, 65) �
15.20, p � .001, �2 � .190. To test the specific hypotheses of the
study, we performed a series of planned contrasts.

Conformity on Subjective Items

When topics were subjective, it was predicted that a mate-
attraction motive would lead men to nonconform and would lead
women to conform more. Consistent with this prediction, an
ANOVA with participant sex and motive revealed a significant
two-way interaction, F(1, 65) � 12.14, p � .001, �2 � .157. As
seen in Figure 2, men in the mating condition conformed signifi-
cantly less than men in the control condition, F(1, 67) � 5.19, p �
.026, �2 � .072. Conversely, women in the mating condition
conformed significantly more than women in the control, F(1,
67) � 7.36, p � .008, �2 � .099. This pattern for men and women

Figure 2. Effects of mate-attraction motives on conformity depending on
whether content was subjective versus objective (Study 2). Positive values
denote an increase in conformity relative to the control; negative values
denote a decrease in conformity relative to the control, or nonconformity.

287FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES AND CONFORMITY

on subjective topics conceptually replicates the findings from
Study 1.

Conformity on Objective Items

When topics were objective, it was predicted that a mate-
attraction prime would lead men and women to conform more. As
seen in Figure 2, men and women both tended to conform more on
the objective items in the mating condition compared to the con-
trol, F(1, 65) � 5.16, p � .026, �2 � .074. Although the mating
prime increased conformity somewhat more for men than for
women, the Motive � Participant Sex interaction was not statis-
tically significant, F(1, 65) � 3.54, p � .064. Thus, when topics
were objective, a mate-attraction motive tended to generally pro-
duce an increase in conformity, although this increase was greater
for men than women.

Discussion

Despite the fact that this study used conformity measures dif-
ferent from those in the initial study, the results of Study 2
conceptually replicated and extended the findings of Study 1.
When the topic was subjective, mating goals led men to noncon-
form and led women to conform more. In contrast, when the topic
was objective, mating motives produced the predicted increase in
conformity for men and women, as being objectively wrong is
unlikely to make a favorable impression on a romantic candidate.
Thus, mating motives lead men to show independence only on
topics that are subjective, when they do not risk the self-
presentational consequences of being proven wrong. Notably, the
effects of the mating prime persisted although participants’ re-
sponses were ostensibly private. These findings further support the
notion that priming fundamental social motives appears to activate
specific mental sets that automatically facilitate functional cogni-
tions and behaviors. That is, a relevant audience— or even any
audience— did not appear to be necessary to produce the effects.

Study 3

Although the results from the first two studies provide prelim-
inary evidence indicating how fundamental social motives influ-
ence conformity, it is not fully clear exactly why mating motives
produce the specific patterns of behavior. As discussed earlier, we
hypothesized that, for men, a mating motive should produce non-
conformity when it enables men to be relatively unique and appear
assertive and independent— desirable traits in male romantic part-
ners and high-status men (Barkow, 1989; Baumeister & Sommer,
1997; Buss, 2003). In larger groups, such as a group of over 100
people, a man could achieve relative uniqueness by going against
the preferences of the majority, even if that majority is not unan-
imous. As in Study 2, a man who is 1 of 10 people to prefer a
BMW can still appear relatively distinct if 100 other men prefer a
Mercedes. In fact, it would be rare and possibly disturbing if
everyone had the same exact preference in a large group. However,
to be distinctive in a small group (e.g., 5 individuals), a man is
likely to be highly sensitive to the degree of consensus on a given
topic. That is, it is difficult to be distinct when a man is 1 of the 2
people who prefer a BMW, compared with 3 people who prefer a
Mercedes. Note that in Study 1, in which groups consisted of 4
persons, mating motives led men to nonconform when the majority

preference between two alternatives was unanimously one-sided.
However, would men still have nonconformed if consensus opin-
ion was split into a majority of 2 and a minority of 1? According
to the present perspective, if a majority in a small group is not
unanimous, nonconformity is unlikely to enable a man effectively
to appear unique or assertive; instead, the man may merely appear
to be a follower of a minority of 1.2

For women, we hypothesized earlier that a mating motive would
lead to more conformity because it would allow women to appear
agreeable and as someone interested in fostering group cohesion—
desirable traits in a female romantic partner (Barkow, 1989; Buss,
2003; Campbell, 2002). In large groups of people, a woman could
appear agreeable by conforming with the majority even if that
majority is not unanimous. However, just as for men, women in a
small group are likely to be sensitive to the degree of consensus on
a topic. In Study 1, for example, mating motives led women to
conform more when the majority was unanimous. However, if the
group was split into a majority of 2 and a minority of 1, going
along with 2 people (and going against 1 person) is less successful
at conveying agreeableness to the group members or fostering
group cohesion.

Study 3 tested how a mating motive would influence men’s and
women’s conformity depending on whether the majority in a small
group (5 people) was unanimous versus split. It was predicted that
mating motives would produce nonconformity for men and pro-
duce conformity for women primarily when the majority was
unanimous but not when it was split. In line with the first two
studies, these outcomes were only predicted to occur on topics that
were subjective. When topics were objective, it was predicted that
mating motives would generally lead people to increase their
conformity, especially when a small majority was unanimous, as
this would be a much stronger indicator of a correct response
(Insko, Smith, Alicke, Wade, & Taylor, 1985).

Method
Participants

Two hundred fifteen participants (118 male, 97 female) were recruited
from introductory psychology classes as partial fulfillment of their class
requirement. As in the first two studies, participants came in groups and
were seated at private computers.

Design and Procedure

In this study we used a 2 (participant sex) � 2 (motive prime: mating vs.
control) � 2 (topic: subjective vs. objective) � 2 (majority type: unani-
mous [4/0] vs. split [3/1]) mixed-factorial design. Participant sex and prime
were between-participants factors, and topic and majority type were
within-participants factors.

The procedure was very similar to that of Study 2, except for several
small changes. First, participants responded to 10 instead of 6 survey items.
Of the 10 items, 4 were subjective, 4 were objective, and 2 of the items
served as fillers. For the subjective items, the same 3 items from the
previous study were used along with one new item: Would you prefer to

2 It is also consistent with the present perspective that if there were more
than two options in such a situation, a mating motive may be effective at
spurring men to select a third— or any other— option, which would enable
them to stand out and assert their independence (see Santee & Maslach,
1982).

288 GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

have a painting by Van Gogh or Monet? For the objective questions, along
with the 3 previous items, the fourth item asked: Which country do you
think has more consumers, Finland or Norway?

As in Study 2, participants could see the responses of previous survey
takers. However, it appeared that only 4 individuals had thus far completed
the survey. Because participants were told that the survey questions
changed rather frequently, they had no reason to be suspicious of the low
number of respondents. The viewable responses of the 4 previous survey
takers were strategically arranged. The two filler items were always split
2/2 (i.e., 2 people had indicated a preference toward one response, whereas
2 other people had indicated a preference for the opposing response). One
of these filler items always appeared first on the survey to decrease
suspiciousness. Of the four subjective and four objective items, half had
previous responses that were unanimous (4/0), and half of the items had
previous responses showing that the majority was split (3/1). The pairings
of the two types of majorities with the specific survey items and the
specific responses within each item were counterbalanced.

Results

As in the first two studies, regardless of the particular choice
advocated by the majority, participants’ responses were converted
into a conformity index for each item, whereby higher numbers
indicated a higher degree of conformity. There were no significant
sex differences in conformity in the control condition. To test the
specific hypotheses of the study, we performed a series of planned
contrasts for the subjective items and the objective items.

Conformity on Subjective Items

When topics were subjective, it was predicted that mating goals
would (differentially) influence men and women’s conformity
depending on whether the majority was unanimous versus split.
Consistent with this prediction, results indicated a three-way in-
teraction with participant sex, motive, and majority type, although
this interaction was not conventionally significant, F(1, 213) �
2.84, p � .093, �2 � .013.

When the majority was unanimous, it was predicted that a
mating prime would lead men to nonconform and a mating prime
would produce more conformity for women. Consistent with this
prediction, results indicated a significant Participant Sex � Motive
interaction when the majority was unanimous, F(1, 213) � 9.30,
p � .003, �2 � .042. As seen on the left side of Figure 3, when the
majority was unanimous, men showed a significant decrease in
conformity in the mating condition, compared with the control,
F(1, 213) � 7.45, p � .007, �2 � .034. In contrast, a mating prime
led women to conform somewhat more, although this difference
was not conventionally significant, F(1, 213) � 2.22, p � .138,
�2 � .010.

When the majority was split, it was predicted that the effects of
the mating motive on subjective conformity would be muted.
Indeed, as seen in Figure 3, there were no significant interactions
with participant sex and motive, main effects, or simple effects
when the majority was split (all ps � .70). Thus, in summary,
when topics were subjective, a mating prime led men to noncon-
form in a small group when the group was unanimous—that is,
when going against the group could make the men distinct. For
women, a mating prime produced somewhat higher conformity in
a small group when the majority was unanimous—that is, when
going along with the group would be particularly effective at
displaying agreeableness and fostering group cohesion for women.

Conformity on Objective Items

When topics were objective, it was predicted that a mating
prime would produce an increase in men and women’s conformity
primarily when the majority was unanimous, but not necessarily
when the majority was split. Consistent with this prediction, results
indicated a Motive � Majority Type interaction for objective
items, although this interaction was not conventionally significant
F(1, 213) � 3.44, p � .065, �2 � .016. As seen in Figure 3, when
the majority was unanimous, a mating prime produced a signifi-

Figure 3. Effects of mate-attraction motives on conformity depending on whether content was subjective
versus objective, and on whether the majority was unanimous or split (Study 3). Positive values denote an
increase in conformity relative to the control; negative values denote a decrease in conformity relative to the
control, or nonconformity.

289FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES AND CONFORMITY

cant increase in conformity for men and women, compared with
the control, F(1, 211) � 3.88, p � .050, �2 � .018. When the
majority was split, however, a mating prime failed to produce a
difference from control for men or women (all ps � .75). Thus, a
mating prime produced an increase in conformity on objective
items only when the majority was unanimous, which is precisely
when men and women could have more confidence in the accuracy
of the majority position.

Discussion

The results of Study 3 conceptually replicated and extended the
findings from the previous two studies by illuminating the pro-
cesses by which mating motives differentially influence men’s and
women’s conformity. First, as in Study 2, when the content was
objective, mating motives tended to produce an increase in men
and women’s conformity. As would be expected, this increase was
strongest when the majority of four was unanimous, which is a
stronger indicator of the correct response compared with a split
consensus of 3 to 1. Second, when content was subjective and the
majority of 4 was unanimous, mating motives led men to noncon-
form and produced a pattern of higher conformity for women.
However, when consensus opinion in the group was split into a
majority of 3 and a minority of 1, mating motives failed to
influence either men’s or women’s conformity.

This unanimous-only finding for men in small groups supports
the notion that mating motives lead men to go against the group
likely because they motivate men to appear unique and assertive.
Each of these self-presentational goals can be optimally achieved
through nonconformity primarily when the majority in a small
group is unanimous. When consensus is split into a majority of 3
and a minority of 1, going against the group is less likely to make
men look unique or assertive. The unanimous-only pattern for
women supports the idea that mating motives are likely to lead
women to conform more in part because they motivate them to
appear agreeable and foster group cohesion. Each of these self-
presentation goals can be optimally achieved through conformity
primarily when the majority in a small group is unanimous. When
consensus is split into a majority of 3 and a minority of 1, going
along with the group is less effective at enabling women to appear
agreeable and fostering group cohesion for the entire group.

The findings of this study may initially appear at odds with the
findings from Study 2. In that study, mating motives led men to
nonconform and led women to conform more even though the
majority was not unanimous. However, there is a key methodolog-
ical difference between the studies: In Study 2, the ostensible
“group” consisted of over 100 individuals; whereas in this study,
the group consisted of only 5 individuals, including the participant.
Given that mating motives should produce male nonconformity
when going against the group enables men to be relatively distinct,
the effectiveness of the mating prime to produce nonconformity
should depend on the size of the group and the size of the majority.
In larger groups, relative distinctiveness can be achieved via non-
conformity even if the majority is not unanimous; that is, a person
can appear relatively distinct if he is one of 10 people who prefer
Option A compared with 100 people who prefer Option B. In a
small group, however, being 1 of the 2 people who prefer Option
A compared with the 3 people who prefer Option B is much less
effective at achieving distinctiveness. A similar rationale also
applies to women: The effectiveness of conformity to convey

agreeableness or group cohesion depends on the size of the group
and the size of the majority, whereby conformity is more effective
at achieving these self-presentational goals in small groups
when the majority is unanimous. Thus, the seeming inconsis-
tency between the Studies 2 and 3 does not undermine the
theoretical grounding of the predictions or the actual findings.
Indeed, the findings appear to indicate that people are under-
standably sensitive to the size of the group and the size of the
majority when opting to (non)conform.

General Discussion

The present research examined how the temporary activation of
two fundamental social motives—a motive to protect oneself from
danger and a motive to attract a mate—influenced tendencies to
conform. Findings indicated that a self-protective mindset led both
men and women to conform more. That is, when people were
motivated to avoid threat and to protect themselves from danger,
they tended to go along with the group. In contrast, a mating
mindset generally produced different effects for men and women.
For men, the goal to attract a mate generally led them to go against
the preferences of others; whereas for women, the goal to attract a
mate generally tended to increase the likelihood that women would
conform to the group. However, these general effects of mating
motives on (non)conformity were qualified by three key factors.

First, as seen in Study 1, the effects of mating motives depended
on whether the judgment of the group was positive or negative.
That is, one’s decision to (non)conform depended on whether the
group opinion was essentially thumbs up or thumbs down. The
valence of the group’s judgment of a novel stimulus strongly
influences what kind of dispositional information would be con-
veyed by a person’s (non)conformity. For men, a romantic prime
produced nonconformity specifically when the judgment of the
group was negative. However, when group judgment was posi-
tive—and nonconformity could not be used to convey positive
information—the effect of the mating motive to engender noncon-
formity was muted. For women, a romantic prime tended to
produce somewhat more conformity specifically when the judg-
ment of the group was positive. However, when group judgment
was negative—and conformity could not convey positive informa-
tion—any effect of the mating motive for women was muted.
Notably, the valence of the group’s judgment had no influence on
the effectiveness of self-protection goals to increase conformity,
suggesting that self-protection goals are less sensitive to concerns
of positive or negative self-presentation.

Second, as seen in Studies 2 and 3, mating goals led men to
nonconform only on topics that were subjective. That is, men went
against the group only when they couldn’t be proven to be incor-
rect and when going against the crowd could not result in choices
that were less accurate. In contrast, when the topic was objective,
mating motives actually caused men to conform more. This finding
makes sense given that going against the majority opinion on a
matter of objective fact is not likely to be the most adaptive
behavior, and is often subject to being verified as foolish as
opposed to independent. The effects of mating motives for women,
however, who tended not to take stands against group opinion, did
not depend on whether the topic was subjective or objective.

Third, as seen in Study 3, when in a small group, mating goals
led men to nonconform and led women to show somewhat of an
increase in conformity only when the majority of the group was

290 GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

unanimous. When group opinion was split into a majority of 3 and
a minority of 1, the effects of mating motives were muted for men
and women. This finding for men supports the assumption that
mating motives lead men to desire to appear unique and assertive,
which are desirable characteristics in a male mate. The same
motive, in contrast, seems to lead women to appear agreeable and
foster group cohesion, which is a desirable characteristic in a
female mate. However, as seen in Study 2, when the group consists
of many individuals (e.g., over 100 people), mating motives will
lead men to nonconform and lead women to conform, even when
the (large) majority is not completely unanimous.

Fundamental Motivations and Strategic Self-Presentation

The findings from all three studies fit with a functional domain-
specific model of motivation and behavior. Moreover, the results
indicate that fundamental motives, such as mate attraction, can
stimulate specific forms of conformity or nonconformity in the
service of strategic self-presentation. Notably, the effects of the
mating motive were obtained even when groups consisted of
same-sex individuals (Study 1) and when people’s responses were
ostensibly private (Studies 2 and 3). That is, a mating mindset led
men to go against the group and led women to go along with the
group even when such behavior could not produce tangible ben-
efits for the (non)conformist. Consistent with other research that
activates similar motives (e.g., Maner et al., 2005; Wilson & Daly,
2004), the activation of these fundamental social motives appears
to activate specific mental sets that serve to facilitate functional
perceptions, cognitions, and behaviors that often occur automati-
cally and outside of the awareness of the participant. For example,
Roney (2003) found that men reported greater ambition and desire
to earn more money in the presence of desirable women or when
the men merely looked at photos of desirable women. Although the
presence of a relevant audience may strengthen the tendency for
functional behaviors, a relevant audience— or even any direct
audience—appears unnecessary to elicit the motive-driven
behaviors.

Alternative Explanations

Although the present research has adopted a functional evolu-
tionary framework to examine the relationship between various
social motives and conformity, it would be possible to derive
predictions regarding how various primes would affect conformity
from several other theoretical perspectives. However, none of
these alternative approaches seems to offer as straightforward an
account of the pattern of results obtained in this series of studies.
For example, it is possible that the effects of a mating prime for
men may have been caused because the prime produced more
positive affect and arousal for men than women. Although it is
unlikely that the prime produced more positive mood or arousal for
men (see Griskevicius, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006), even if the
mating scenario did produce more positive affect for men, such a
finding would not constitute a particularly compelling alternative
explanation of the effects. In particular, the affect explanation
would suggest that positive affect leads men to nonconform in
some circumstances while leading them to conform more in other
situations. Although the possibility of higher positive affect for
men would suggest a potential mechanism for why these (non)
conformity effects occur for men, it would raise the question of

why and how a mating prime would produce more conformity for
women.

It is also possible that the link between mating, self-
protection, and conformity is due to simple mechanisms of
associative priming (Srull & Wyer, 1979; see Higgins, 1996, for
a review). Research has shown, for example, that when people
are primed with scrambled sentences alluding to conformity,
they tend to conform more to social pressure (Epley & Gilovich,
1999). Although priming people with self-protective or roman-
tic scenarios may very well activate conformity- or
nonconformity-related concepts, it is difficult to see how an
associative model framework could account for the very spe-
cific pattern of sex differences and similarities in nonconfor-
mity as well as conformity that was observed in this research.
Moreover, such a perspective would have difficulty explaining
why the primes produced responding that was highly sensitive
to the specific features of a given situation in ways that sup-
ported a more articulated interaction with different goals.

The functional framework used in this research is by no means
an alternative to the associative network model of cognition. Both
models imply that there are certain links between motivation,
cognition, and behavior. However, the functional model does more
than just assert that priming specific ideas will lead to the activa-
tion of associatively linked semantic and affective categories.
Rather, the functional model leads to articulated predictions re-
garding how activating specific functional goals should lead to
specific goal-consistent—and sex-consistent— cognitive and be-
havioral responses (Maner et al., 2005).

A social learning model may suggest that men and women
have been differentially rewarded for their conformity or non-
conformity, although it is again difficult to predict from this
perspective the precise pattern of sex differences and similari-
ties, as well as the sensitivity of the behaviors to specific
contexts, that we found. Social role theory may suggest that
men are taught and rewarded for being tough and resolute.
However, in this research, cues connoting danger, which may
be predicted to provide men a perfect opportunity to show their
toughness and stout independence, caused men to be highly
conforming, which is inconsistent with appearing tough and
independent. Social role theory may also suggest that, in order
to attract mates, men are taught to present themselves as inde-
pendent and autonomous from the judgments of others. Indeed,
although men displayed such behaviors some of the time, a
mating motive actually led men to become less independent and
less autonomous when topics were objective—a specific pre-
diction clearly derived from a functional perspective.

Neither social role theories nor social learning theories are
mutually exclusive with functional evolutionary accounts, since
evolutionary theorists presume that social roles across societies are
a function of evolutionary constraints on men and women and that
many behaviors involve an adaptive interplay of learning and
evolved predispositions (Kenrick, Trost, & Sundie, 2004; &
Öhman & Mineka, 2001). We are not aware, however, of predic-
tions made by social role or social learning theories for the very
specific patterns of results obtained here—patterns that follow
directly from considerations of how different fundamental social
goals can be achieved through specific self-presentation behaviors
for men and women.

291FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES AND CONFORMITY

Limitations and Future Directions

One of the limitations of the present research is that it did not
examine conformity in face-to-face interactions. Although we con-
ducted Study 1 using a virtual group chat room setting with an
expectation of a face-to-face discussion, the functional perspective
suggests that the effects of fundamental motives are likely to be
even stronger in real groups, where people would have more to
gain through strategic self-presentation. People’s everyday expe-
riences of conformity are also partly shaped by their cultural
context (Bond & Smith, 1996; Kim & Markus, 1999). Although
the present studies examined how fundamental motives influence
self-presentation via conformity and nonconformity in one culture,
an evolutionary functionalist perspective holds that mate-attraction
motives should activate a desire to positively differentiate oneself
from one’s rivals and to present oneself in a positive light in all
cultures. However, the specific contexts in which conformity or
nonconformity is seen as an appropriate way to achieve these goals
will surely depend on cultural or local norms (Norenzayan &
Heine, 2005; Norenzayan, Schaller, & Heine, in press).

The mating prime used in the current research is likely to have
aroused feelings related to lust rather than to stable attachment. It
would be interesting to explore in future research what kinds of
behaviors would be produced by eliciting feelings of stable love or
attachment. For example, a prime of an elderly affectionate couple
is unlikely to produce the same (non)conformity effects as in the
present research because it is unlikely to sufficiently activate
motives related to mate attraction. However, thoughts of stable
attachment may lead men to conform more than they may other-
wise because a desire for attachment may produce a desire to
belong to a group.

The romantic prime used in the present work was ambiguous
regarding whether it activated a desire to attract a short-term
versus a long-term mate. Given that the type of mating strategy one
is pursuing is related to strategically different self-presentation
(e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993), it would be interesting to explore in
future research whether activating an explicit short-term versus a
long-term mating goal would have a different effect on men and
women’s (non)conformity. Given that leadership qualities in men
are valued in both short-term and long-term mates, it seems likely
that both types of mating goals would lead men to go against the
group. However, to the extent that women are under more pressure
to display agreeableness and group cohesion to a potential long-
term mate, the desire to attract a long-term romantic partner may
produce more conformity for women than a desire to attract a
short-term mate. In addition, certain individual differences, such as
one’s sociosexual orientation (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991, 1992)
and romantic relationship status, may also influence a person’s
self-presentational tactics (Simpson et al., 1999).

Conclusion

There has been a long-standing debate about whether men are
more nonconforming than women. The research we have presented
here suggests that the answer depends in part on the goal that is
currently active for a man or a woman deciding whether to go
along or to go alone. It further suggests that being a conformist or
a nonconformist is not simply a trait of men or women that
manifests itself without regard to situational inputs. Self-protective
motivation leads both men and women to increase their general

tendency to conform with a group’s opinions. Mating motivation,
on the other hand, leads to a particular and very functional pattern
of nonconformity for males—who will go it alone against a group,
but only if such independence cannot be objectively proven to be
erroneous and if they are not following another individual who has
already defied the group.

References

Allen, V. L. (1975). Social support for nonconformity. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 8, pp. 1– 43).
New York: Academic Press.

Argyle, M. (1957). Social pressure in public and private situations. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 172–175.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority
of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9,
Whole No. 416).

Bargh, J. A. (1990). Auto-motives: Preconscious determinant of social
interaction. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation and social cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2,
pp. 93–130). New York: Guilford Press.

Barkow, J. H. (1989). Darwin, sex, and status: Biological approaches to
mind and culture. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto
Press.

Baron, R. S., Vandello, J., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable
in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915–927.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender
differences and two spheres of belongingness. Psychological Bulletin,
122, 38 – 44.

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis
of studies using Asch’s line judgment task. Psychological bulletin, 119,
111–137.

Bremner, J. G. (2002). The nature of imitation by infants. Infant Behavior
& Development, 25, 65– 67.

Brewer, M. B., (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at
the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–
482.

Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: A
domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187–219.

Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating
(2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100,
204 –232.

Campbell, A. (2002). A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of
women. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1989). Informational and normative routes
to conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity
and attention to the stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 57, 457– 468.

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The
perception– behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (2002). Nonconscious motivations: Their
activation, operation, and consequences. In A. Tesser, D. Stapel, & J.
Wood (Eds.), Self and motivation: Emerging psychological perspectives
(pp. 13– 41). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). New
York: Allyn & Bacon.

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Conformity
and compliance. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591– 621.

292 GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of
normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in
public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–
1026.

Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R., (1998). Social influence: Social norms,
conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology: Vol. 2 (4th ed., pp. 151–192). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social ex-
change. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted
mind (pp. 163–228). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and
gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.

Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psycholo-
gist, 10, 191–198.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informa-
tional social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 51, 629 – 636.

Dijksterhuis, A., Bargh, J. A., & Miedema, J. (2000). Of men and mack-
erels: Attention and automatic behavior. In H. Bless & J. P. Forgas
(Eds.), Subjective experience in social cognition and behavior (pp.
36 –51). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Dittes, J. E., & Kelley, H. H. (1956). Effects of different conditions of
acceptance upon conformity to group norms. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 53, 100 –107.

Duval, S. (1972). Conformity of a visual task as a function of personal
novelty on attitudinal dimensions and being reminded of the object
status of the self. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas.

Eagly, A. H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological
Bulletin, 85, 86 –116.

Eder, D., & Sandford, S. (1986). The development and maintenance of
interactional norms among early adolescents. Sociological Studies of
Child Development, 1, 283–300.

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (1999). Just going along: Nonconscious priming
and conformity to social pressure. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 35, 578 –589.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 117–140.

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). On the evolutionary psychol-
ogy of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.

Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (Eds.). (1999). Simple heuristics that make
us smart. London: Oxford University Press.

Goldstein, N. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (in press). Using social norms as a lever
of social influence. In A. Pratkanis (Ed.), The science of social influence:
Advances and future progress. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V. (2006). A room with a
viewpoint: Using normative appeals to motivate environmental conser-
vation behaviors in a hotel setting. Manuscript under review.

Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He said, she said. Bloomington: Indiana Univer-
sity Press.

Gopnik, A., Meltzhoff, A. N., & Kuhl., P. K. (1999). The scientists in the
crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. New York: Morrow.

Green, B. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (1994). The attractiveness of gender-typed
traits at different relationship levels: Androgynous characteristics may
be desirable after all. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
244 –253.

Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick D. T. (2006). Peacocks,
Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 63–76.

Hamilton, W. D. (1971). Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of Theo-
retical Biology, 31, 295–311.

Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new
perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional conta-
gion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accesibility, applicability,
and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York:
Guilford Press.

Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credits.
Psychological Review, 65, 117–127.

Hornstein, H. A., Fisch, E., & Holmes, M. (1968). Influence of a model’s
feeling about his behavior and his relevance as a comparison other on
observers’ helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 10, 222–226.

Insko, C. A., Drenan, S., Solomon, M. R., Smith, R., & Wade, T. J. (1983).
Conformity as a function of the consistency of positive self-evaluation
with being liked and being right. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 19, 341–358.

Insko, C. A., Smith, R. H., Alicke, M. D., Wade, J., & Taylor, S. (1985).
Conformity and group size: The concern with being right and with being
liked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 41–50.

Janes, L. M., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressure: The behavioral effects
of observing ridicule of others. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 474 – 485.

Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary
psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psy-
chological Review, 110, 3–28.

Kenrick, D. T., Trost, M. R., & Sundie, J. M. (2004). Sex roles as
adaptations: An evolutionary perspective on gender differences and
similarities. In A. H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Psychology
of gender (pp. 65–91). New York: Guilford Press.

Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Uniqueness or deviance, harmony or
conformity: A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 77, 785– 800.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1991). Group members’ reactions to
opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to
decision deadline and of environmental noise. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 212–225.

Lakin, J., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral
mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14,
334 –339.

Laughlin, P. R., Zander, M. L., Knievel, E. M., & Tan, T. K. (2003).
Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers
problems: Informative equations and effective strategies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 684 – 694.

Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and in-
terpersonal behavior. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Levine, J. M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. B.
Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 187–231).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Levine, J. M., Higgins, E. T., & Choi, H. S. (2000). Development of
strategic norms in groups. Organizational behavior and human decision
process, 82, 88 –101.

Maass, A., Volpato, C., & Mucchi-Faina, A. (1996). Social influence and
the verifiability of the issue under discussion: Attitudinal versus objec-
tive items. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 15–26.

Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and non-systematic processing of ma-
jority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 41–52.

Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T. E., Hofer, B.,
Neuberg, S. N., et al. (2005). Functional projection: How fundamental
social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88, 63–78.

Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Social-influence process of control
and change: Conformity, obedience to authority and innovation. In
M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psychol-
ogy (pp. 347–366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

293FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES AND CONFORMITY

Maslach, C., Stapp, J., & Santee, R. T. (1985). Individuation: Conceptual
analysis and assessment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
49, 729 –738.

Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, O. (1969). Note on the drawing
power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 13, 79 – 82.

Miller, C. E., & Anderson, P. D. (1979). Group decision rules and the
rejection of deviates. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 354 –363.

Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 2 (3rd ed., pp.
347– 412). New York: Random House.

Mucchi-Faina, A., Maass, A., & Volpato, C. (1991). Social influence: The
role of originality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 183–197.

Nail, P. R., MacDonald, G., & Levy, D. A. (2000). Proposal of a four-
dimensional model of social response. Psychological Bulletin, 126,
106 –116.

Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psychological universals across
cultures: What are they and how do we know? Psychological Bulletin,
131, 763–784.

Norenzayan, A., Schaller, M., & Heine, S. J. (in press). Evolution and
culture. In M. Schaller, J. Simpson, & D. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and
social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness:
Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychology Re-
view, 108, 483–522.

Plutchik, R. (1980). A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In R.
Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and expe-
rience: Vol. 1. Theories of emotion (pp. 3–33). New York: Academic
Press.

Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Soloman, S. (1997). Why do we need
what we need? A terror management perspective on the roots of human
social motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 1–20.

Ridgeway, C. L. (1978). Conformity, group-oriented motivation, and status
attainment in small groups. Social Psychology, 41, 175–188.

Roney, J. R. (2003). Effects of visual exposure to the opposite sex:
Cognitive aspects of mate attraction in human males. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 393– 404.

Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and
heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 730 –738.

Santee, R. T., & Maslach, C. (1982). To agree or not to agree: Personal
dissent amid social pressure to conform. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 690 –700.

Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190 –207.

Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of
the sources of gregariousness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Schaller, M. (2003). Ancestral environments and motivated social percep-
tion: Goal-like blasts from the evolutionary past. In S. J. Spencer, S.
Fein., M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Motivated social perception
(pp. 215–231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schaller, M., Faulkner, J., Park, J. H., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T.
(2004). Impressions of danger influence impressions of people: An

evolutionary perspective on individual and collective cognition. Journal
of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 231–247.

Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney
(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 492–518). New York: Guil-
ford Press.

Scott, J. P. (1980). The function of emotions in behavioral systems: A
systems theory analysis. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion:
Theory, research, and experience (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in

sociosexuality: Evidence for converging and discriminant validity. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 870 – 883.

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic
partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51.

Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., Christensen, P. N., & Leck, K. (1999).
Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tac-
tics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 159 –172.

Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit
of difference. New York: Plenum Press.

Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the
interpretation of information about persons: Some determinant and im-
plications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660 –
1672.

Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (in press).
Evolutionary social influence. In M. Schaller, J. Simpson, & D. Kenrick
(Eds.), Evolution and social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Doubleday Press.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung,

R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in
females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review,
107, 411– 429.

Tesser, A. Campbell, J., & Mickler, S. (1983). The role of social pressure,
attention to the stimulus, and self-doubt in conformity. European Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 13, 217–233.

Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Precis of simple heuristics that make
us smart. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 727–780.

Weir, H. B. (1971). Deprivation of the need for uniqueness and some
variables moderating its effects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Georgia.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of compe-
tence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.

Wickler, W. (1968). Mimicry in plants and animals. London: World
University Library.

Willis, R. H. (1963). Two dimensions of conformity–nonconformity. So-
ciometry, 26, 499 –513.

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (2004). Do pretty women inspire men to discount
the future? Proceedings of the Royal Society, 271B(Suppl. 4), 177–179.

Wisman, A., & Koole, S. L. (2003). Hiding in the crowd: Can mortality
salience promote affiliation with others who oppose one’s worldviews?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 511–526.

Received August 26, 2005
Revision received December 19, 2005

Accepted December 26, 2005 �

294 GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

Accessible luxury fashion brand
building via fat discrimination

Ulf Aagerup
Department of Marketing, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate if accessible luxury fashion brands discriminate
overweight and obese consumers.
Design/methodology/approach – The physical sizes of garments are surveyed in-store and compared to
the body sizes of the population. A gap analysis is carried out in order to determine whether the supply of
clothes match the demand of each market segment.
Findings – The surveyed accessible luxury garments come in very small sizes compared to the individuals
that make up the population.
Research limitations/implications – The survey is limited to London stores but the garment sizes are
compared to the British population. It is therefore possible that the discrepancies between assortments and
the population are in part attributable to geographic and demographic factors. The study’s results are,
however, so strikingly clear that even if some of the effects were due to extraneous variables, it would be hard
to disregard the poor match between overweight and obese women and the clothes offered to them.
Practical implications – For symbolic/expressive brands that are conspicuously consumed, that narrowly
target distinct and homogenous groups of people in industries where elitist practices are acceptable,
companies can build brands via customer rejection.
Social implications – The results highlight ongoing discrimination of overweight and obese fashion
consumers.
Originality/value – The study is the first to provide quantitative evidence for brand building via customer
rejection, and it delineates under which conditions this may occur. This extends the theory of typical user
imagery.
Keywords Fashion, Branding, Obesity, Assortments, Fat discrimination, Typical user imagery
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Consumers tend to judge brands by their users; if consumers have a clear picture of what
kind of person would use a specific brand in their minds, the brand takes on similar
characteristics (Aaker, 1997; Keller, 2000; Hayes et al., 2008). The tendency to equate brand
personality to the personality of the user is particularly pronounced, and particularly
relevant for, symbolic offerings that relate to the consumer’s self-image (Sirgy et al., 2000).
Fashion fulfills these criteria (Levy, 1959; McCracken, 1988) and this is the reason
companies display attractive models alongside their products in ads (Vermeir and Sompel,
2014). However, user imagery is not just a result of advertising. It can also be formed
through consumers’ observation of real-world users (Keller, 1993). From a marketing
standpoint, it would therefore make sense, not just that companies would try to attract
customers with desirable traits, but also that they would reject customers who display
undesirable traits. While advertising imagery has received ample attention from scholars
(e.g. Bower and Landreth, 2001; Steadman, 1969; Vermeir and Sompel, 2014), brand building
via customer rejection has not. Historically, the emphasis on advertising imagery is
understandable, because advertising has until now provided most brand imagery
(Sotiropoulos, 2003), making it crucial to consumers’ brand perception. However, the

Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management
Vol. 22 No. 1, 201

pp. 2-1

Received 20 December 2016
Revised 22 March 201

Accepted 25 May 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

The author would like to thank Inger Larsson for her invaluable help. Her anthropometric data gave
the author the connection the author needed between the population and the clothing sizes. The author
also owes a debt of gratitude to Maria Erlandsson and Elin Forslund, who helped the author acquire
the garment size data that enabled the study.

JFMM
22,1

marketing environment is changing rapidly. The advent and growth of the Internet makes it
increasingly easy for individuals to see what real-world brand users look like. The display of
consumption is occurring on an unprecedented scale (Williams, 2003), and nowhere is
typical user imagery more visible than on social media (Durayappah, 2011; Copeland, 2011).
What is more, social media is becoming increasingly visual in character (DeMers, 2013),
which further boosts the number of real-world users consumers are exposed to. The fashion
industry is at the heart of this development. Fashion is self-expressive (McCracken, 1986),
visual in character (Kawamura, 2007), and one of the most popular product categories to
photograph and publicize on social media (Azuma and Fernie, 2003). The trend toward
increased display of consumption through new channels of communication means that the
study of real-world user imagery is becoming increasingly relevant, and fashion’s unique
character makes it a suitable object of study.

To study brand building via customer rejection, I turn to overweight and obese fashion
consumers. Body shape and fashion are interlinked, and heavier physiologies are
universally regarded negatively (Demarest and Allen, 2000). Branding theory would
therefore support the idea of rejecting overweight and obese fashion consumers to improve
typical user imagery. Public opinion certainly supports the notion of fat discrimination in
fashion. Although fashion companies will not admit to such practices (Gripenberg, 2004),
many people are convinced that overweight people face difficulties when it comes to finding
clothes because companies limit sizes in an effort to avoid the negative associations related
to overweight. Opinions to that effect are found in the blogging community (e.g. Hilton,
2013), in mainstream media (e.g. Ritson, 2003) as well as in the political establishment
(e.g. Kulturhuset Stockholm, 2006). There is however very little evidence for such practices.
In the only generalizable study on this phenomenon to date, Aagerup (2010) examines
the assortments of fast fashion companies, and contrary to popular belief, the examined
companies do not discriminate larger consumers in favor of slimmer ones. The author
however points out that purveyors of more expensive fashion may act differently.
He therefore calls for further research. In response to this call, a study on accessible luxury
fashion is carried out. In contrast to Aagerup’s study, the results reveal that the investigated
accessible luxury fashion companies do reject overweight and obese consumers. The study
provides quantitative evidence that companies control assortments to exclude undesirable
users, and it delineates under which conditions this may occur. This extends the theory of
typical user imagery. What is more, the results have social implications as they highlight
ongoing discrimination.

Theoretical background and hypothesis development
Brand image can be defined as the sum of all the subjective perceptions (functional and
non-functional) of a brand in the minds of consumers (Fournier, 1998; Patterson, 1999;
Sutherland et al., 2004; Stern, 2006). It is thus made up of consumers’ brand associations
(Keller, 1993). Brand associations are in part shaped by a non-product related attribute
called typical user imagery (Aaker, 1996).

Typical user imagery
Typical user imagery is the stereotyped perception of the generalized user of a particular
brand (Parker, 2005, p. 19). It is formed directly by a consumer’s contact with brand users
(Keller, 1993). Sirgy (1982) formally defines the construct as the set of human characteristics
associated with the brand user. In contrast to ideal users that are paid by companies to
represent their brands, typical users wear the brand of their own volition without
recompense (Aaker, 1996, p. 147). Typical users can for example be colleagues, friends,
people in the street, real people in media, etc. Unlike advertising imagery, typical user
imagery provides a straight observation of the type of person that uses a brand, and as

Accessible
luxury fashion
brand building

Silverman (2010) points out, observations constitute the purest and least distorted source of
information available. It is therefore possible that the authenticity of typical user imagery
increases the effect it has on brands, much like word-of-mouth does as compared to
traditional marketing communications (Keller, 2003, p. 71). For companies, the importance of
user imagery is that it affects brand personality (Keller, 2000; Hayes et al., 2008), and
therefore the company’s ability to create customer satisfaction (Sirgy and Samli, 1985).
User imagery is consequently directly linked to the customer value that a company
provides, and thus to that which generates sales and profits (Kressmann et al., 2006).
However, just because brands are shaped by typical user imagery, it is not clear that
companies refuse to sell products to certain individuals because their patronage would
affect their brands negatively. Turning down money goes against the raison d’être of
most companies, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that it will only be done under
certain conditions.

Brand building via customer rejection
Typical user imagery informs potential consumers of who normally uses the brand, which is
what allows the brand to act as a tool for self-expression. However, there are different types
of symbolic brand value; status, esteem, ethics, and aesthetics (Holbrook, 2005). The type of
symbolic value provided by the brand dictates which type of typical users will help brand
image the most. High status users will for instance be beneficial to an exclusive high-end
brand like Gucci, while an environmentally conscious brand like Patagonia will benefit most
from typical users that are conspicuously ethical. The issue of user imagery type is thus a
question of fit between typical users and the desired brand personality. Related to this, it is
also important that the practice of customer rejection is congruent with the symbolic
character of the brand. Exclusivity can be attractive (Barone and Roy, 2010), and for upscale
fashion, customer rejection can even increase aspiring consumers’ desire for the brand
(Ward and Dahl, 2014). For fast fashion on the other hand, the suspicion that some
customers are being left out creates outrage, both from media (Jönsson, 2009; Moore, 2013)
and consumers (Big Fat Blog, 2004; Thompson, 2013). For fast fashion, there is a reasonable
expectation of egalitarianism. Fast fashion offers the most basic clothing available, which
constitutes a physiological need (Maslow, 1970); something everyone needs in order to
survive. For companies to limit the supply of products that satisfy a basic need is naturally
more controversial than when the purveyors of luxury, which owes much of its allure to
rarity (Catry, 2003), do the same.

As for the strength of typical user imagery, it will be greater if other people can easily
observe the visual appearance of the brand’s customer base. Because there is little else to go
on, visible cues can dominate the overall impression of a brand user (Johar and Sirgy, 1991).
This in turn requires that consumption is easily observable, because if no one can tell who is
consuming a brand, the public will not be able to form an opinion of the brand users, and
this in turn means that they cannot judge the brand on its typical user imagery.
Another consideration is how distinct the user imagery is. A goal in marketing is to build
unique brand associations in the minds of consumers (Keller, 1993). If companies build
brand associations in the minds of consumers by controlling who is allowed to become a
customer, it would therefore stand to reason that unique typical user imagery should
be a more effective brand-building tool than typical user imagery that is similar to that of
other brands.

The type, favorability, strength, and uniqueness of typical user imagery may determine
the extent to which typical user imagery shapes brands, but before attempting customer
rejection as a brand-building strategy one must also consider whether it is feasible to do so.
The first such consideration is whether the company can actually reject certain customers.
For instance, even though the association to Premier League footballers may hurt a car

JFMM
22,1

brand aimed at gentlemen, it is difficult to stop footballers buying Bentleys (Hallett, 2013).
Conversely, for fashion companies it is easy to reject overweight and obese customers; it is
just a matter of limiting sizes so that no garments fit them. In addition to practicality, there
is also a financial consideration; a company that builds brands via customer rejection must
be able to afford to turn down business. It is for instance possible that fast fashion
companies do not exclude overweight and obese customers to improve brand image because
their low margin/high volume business model does not allow for it (Aagerup, 2010).
This should be less of a concern for the accessible luxury fashion brands studied here.

Accessible luxury fashion companies vs fast fashion
Fast fashion is marketed by large companies whose inexpensive products are oftentimes
inspired by those of higher priced brands, and whose success is dependent on a high
turnover rate. Brand image, product features, and communication styles are established by
premium brands and are then copied by fast fashion brands (Bhardwaj and Fairhurst, 2009;
Nellis, 2010; Waddell, 2004). Much of the allure for fast fashion consumers is thus the
possibility to get nice clothes for less-to get a good deal. This cost/sacrifice approach to
value (Smith and Colgate, 2007) is quite different from that of accessible luxury, whose value
is largely symbolic (Berry, 1994). It is that symbolic meaning that allows companies to
charge a premium for luxury products (Brioschi, 2006), and this is so pronounced that lower
value-for-money can actually raise a product’s attractiveness (O’Cass and McEwen, 2004)
because it boosts exclusivity (Catry, 2003). Luxury is often consumed for status (Tynan
et al., 2010), and in order for consumption to bestow status on its user, it must be
conspicuous, and not available to everyone (Veblen, 1899). A luxury brand is a reference of
good taste, so if the “wrong” customers use it the brand will no longer be luxury and
therefore no longer function as a reference of style or class (Kapferer, 1997). A prerequisite
for this to happen is that other people can see who is using a brand, and publically
consumed brands (e.g. fashion, cars, or restaurants) therefore tend to be influenced by user
imagery to a greater degree than privately consumed brands (e.g. hygiene products,
medicine, or internet providers) (Parker, 2009). Luxury comes in different forms (Vigneron
and Johnson, 2004). There is accessible, intermediate, and inaccessible luxury (Chevalier
et al., 2012). Inaccessible luxury comprises offerings like supercars and jewelry; intermediate
luxury can be exemplified by expensive watches, while accessible luxury among other
categories comprises premium brand fashion (De Barnier et al., 2012). For fashion, accessible
luxury refers to a product tier that is more upscale than fast fashion, and that employs many
of the same approaches to marketing as do genuine luxury brands. Accessible luxury
however differs from traditional luxury by producing large quantities (Chevalier et al., 2012).
Many consumers spend a large proportion of their income on luxury brands. This is true
even for consumers who have a very low income (Hudders, 2012), and luxury has during the
last decade become a concern for a large swath of the population (Kapferer and Bastien,
2009). Because it is the type of luxury that is most easily obtained for consumers of limited
means, accessible luxury is the most relevant level of luxury to study from a perspective of
social implications.

Overweight and obese typical user imagery and fashion
As mentioned above, a brand’s image in the minds of consumers is influenced by
consumers’ impression of the kind of person that would use it (Kressman et al., 2006).
Interestingly, for self-expressive product categories, negative user stereotypes are
considered particularly powerful (Banister and Hogg, 2004), and overweight is widely
considered a negative characteristic. People who are overweight are regarded as
weak-willed, lazy, stupid, selfish, ugly (Brownell, 2005, p. 285), unattractive (Wooley and
Wooley, 1979), and morally inferior (Keys, 1955). Fashion is a high-involvement

Accessible
luxury fashion
brand building

product category, which is used to express the self through identification with brand traits
(Banister and Hogg, 2004), and it is one of the most expressive product categories in
existence (McCracken, 1988, p. 57). It is therefore important that a fashion brand’s user
matches the consumer’s idea of what a woman ought to be like (Feiereisen et al., 2009).
Since most people prefer thin female body shapes (Cohn and Adler, 1992; Demarest and
Allen, 2000), the first hypothesis is:

H1. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size,
will be greatest for normal to underweight consumers.

Because of the negative view of overweight, it is reasonable to assume that the combination
of fashion and overweight typical user imagery would be detrimental to brands, and that
companies as a result would discriminate overweight individuals by not offering clothes
that fit them. The second hypothesis for accessible luxury fashion is therefore:

H2. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size,
will be smaller for overweight consumers compared to that of normal to
underweight consumers.

Further, while overweight has negative connotations (Janssen et al., 2002), obesity has
much more severe consequences to both health (Fontaine et al., 2003) and social well-being
(Harris et al., 1982). The resulting hypothesis for accessible luxury fashion is therefore:

H3. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size,
will be smaller for obese consumers compared to that of both normal to underweight
consumers and overweight consumers.

Method
The definition employed for discrimination is treating certain people differently, not
because of their ability to pay, but because of other reasons. To test the hypotheses, it is
necessary to measure if there is a discrepancy between the relative size of the overweight
and obese market segments and the supply of clothes that is available to them. In other
words, do overweight and obese consumers have less to choose from than what is
motivated by their numbers? To this end, three brands were chosen: Brand 1, Brand 2, and
Brand 3. They are all accessible luxury fashion brands. However, they have different
owner structures, and they offer different styles, and this is the reason they were selected.
While one should be careful to make generalizations based on the findings of a limited
study such as this, the diversity of the chosen companies strengthens the validity of the
claim that accessible luxury fashion companies build brands by fat discrimination, should
the hypotheses be supported.

Sample of stores
The chosen stores constitute a convenience sample. Two students visited six stores
(one concept store from each brand, and three department stores where the brands are
represented), all located in London. Concept stores and department stores are typical outlets
for the studied brands, which should help claims of external validity.

Survey of garments
Brands 1, 2, and 3 all offer intermediate luxury garments (see definition above).
The surveyed garments are jeans and tops. The jeans are denim pants that are worn tight.
Tops comprise shirts, t-shirts, tank tops, and sweaters. Although they vary as garments,
their fit is similar. There are no skintight tops included, nor are there any unusually loose
cuts. Jeans and tops are chosen because they constitute a considerable part of the garments

6
JFMM
22,1

that these companies sell. It is consequently reasonable to assume that the way the jeans
and tops assortments are managed should be representative of how the companies manage
assortments and sizes. What is more, tops and jeans are tailored to fit the body, thereby
making sizes relevant to the consumers’ body shapes. In each store, every garment in the
selected categories garments were tallied and their waist was measured in-store with a tape
measure. The total number of garments was 1,454. The tape measure approach is necessary
because clothes sizes are not standardized across markets and manufacturers, and one
garment can therefore be larger or smaller than another of the same nominal size. Measuring
the garments solves this issue.

Fit is another important consideration. The anthropometric measurements provide the
actual body sizes of individuals in each BMI class, but for women’s tops, body size does not
equal garment size. Tops are not worn skintight. I have after consulting with several sales
clerks decided that the individuals’ actual waist measurement plus 15 centimeters is a
reasonable waist size for a top. This will no doubt vary between garment models as well as
between individuals. Some women like a loose fit while others prefer tighter tops. In total,
15 cm constitutes a rather loose fit. I however chose to err on the side of caution because I
want to avoid any suspicion that I have manipulated the data to make it seem like
overweight people are discriminated against more than they really are.

Jeans sizes are expressed in waist measurements. However, by waist, the manufacturers
do not really mean waist in an anatomically correct way. Instead they mean the top edge of
the jeans, which when the garment is worn can be found at the waist, but also riding on the
hip or anywhere in between. I have chosen to look at a point in between the waist and hip
referred to as the crista (the top line in the illustration below). For women’s intermediate
luxury jeans, it is common to find the top edge at the crista (Figure 1).

Crista, upper border

Pelvic, max width

Sacroiliac joint, lower border

Acetabulum, upper border

Symphysis, upper border
Symphysis, lower border

Source: Ingrid Larsson, Department of Body Composition and Metabolism, Sahlgrenska
University Hospital

Figure 1.
Illustration of
measurement

points for jeans

7
Accessible
luxury fashion
brand building

Sample of population
Body mass index (BMI) is used to determine the consumers’ body type. BMI is a function of
a person’s height and weight ratio, and its relevance as an evaluative measure of
individuals’ weight has attracted some criticism (Shah and Braverman, 2012). The BMI
measurement was however not originally conceived as a diagnostic of individual weight,
but as a means to measure the weight of a population, and for this use it is more relevant
(Devlin, 2009). It is therefore a suitable operationalization of body shape for this study. BMI
classes (NHS, 2015) are BMI 1 (underweight and normal weight; BMI below 25), BMI 2
(overweight; BMI between 25 and 30), and BMI 3 (obese; BMI above 30). The distribution of
the British population over BMI classes is established in a report by the National Obesity
Observatory (2011). Representative physical measurements of the individuals that make up
each class were kindly provided to me by Clinical Nutritionist Ingrid Larsson with the
Department of Body Composition and Metabolism at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in
Gothenburg, Sweden. She published her doctoral thesis on the subject of body composition
(Larsson, 2005) for which she physically measured 1,135 individuals and statistically related
their size to BMI. Humans store fat similarly in Sweden and the UK, so once the distribution
of individuals over BMI classes is determined, Larsson’s data provide the link needed
between the findings of the National Obesity Observatory report and the data collected for
this study. Thanks to Dr Larsson’s anthropometric data, we know not just the proportion of
Brits in each BMI class, but also their physical sizes. This in turn allows a comparison of the
sizes of garments in-store to the sizes of the individuals that make up the population to
which the companies cater.

Reliability and validity
The data collected from the stores are stock-keeping units (SKUs). Because the units of
measurement consist of observations rather than attitudes, reliability is higher. External
validity is high thanks to the realistic setting and the straight-forward units of
measurement. As for the body measurement data to which the garment sizes are compared,
reliability and validity is high. The bodies of a sufficient number of representative
individuals were measured by a medical researcher, a method that is both repeatable and
relevant for the study of body shapes.

Gap analysis
It is now possible to compare the supply available in-store to the demand. There is a span of
garment sizes that fit each BMI group, and each registered SKU can therefore be allocated to
a BMI group. This allows the garments that fit one BMI group to be expressed as
proportions of the total. These proportions can then be compared to the people who can
wear the garments. This gap analysis allows us to see if any weight classes have more or
less to choose from than is motivated by the relative size of their group.

Findings
While previous research (Aagerup, 2010) shows that fast fashion companies do not
discriminate overweight and obese consumers, the accessible luxury garments measured in
this study come in very small sizes compared to the individuals that make up the general
population. A comparison between the proportions of garments and individuals per BMI
class is presented in Table I.

Test of hypotheses
The objective of the statistical analysis is to determine whether the proportions of garments
that are available to the members of each BMI class is significantly different than the

8
JFMM
22,1

proportions of people that make up each BMI class. To test the significance of the results, a
z-test is carried out. The results show that all differences in proportions but one are
significant at a 99 percent confidence interval:

H1. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size,
will be greatest for normal to underweight consumers.

Members of the BMI 1 class have a significantly greater proportion of the garments in-store
available to them compared to their proportion of the population merits. This is true for both
tops and jeans. H1 can therefore not be rejected:

H2. The number of well-fitting garments, in relation to the group’s relative market size,
will be smaller for overweight consumers compared to that of normal to
underweight consumers.

Members of the BMI 2 class have a significantly smaller proportion of jeans in-store
available to them compared to their proportion of the population merits. The proportions of
women and tops for the BMI 2 class (33 vs 35 percent) are not significantly different.
However, for BMI class 1, they are 33 vs 35 percent, which means that in relation to the
group’s relative market size, the proportion of tops is smaller for overweight consumers
compared to that of normal to underweight consumers. Thus, H2 cannot be rejected:

There were no accessible luxury garments available in-store in sizes that fit obese
consumers. Therefore, H3 cannot be rejected.

The findings can be summarized in the following way: members of the BMI 1 group are
favored, BMI 2 is underrepresented, and BMI 3 is excluded from accessible luxury fashion.
This is what Aagerup expected, but did not find in fast fashion. Another clear finding is that
the mismatch between population and assortments is a lot more pronounced for jeans as
compared to tops.

Discussion
The findings of this study fit perfectly with the theory of user imagery. Overweight and
obese user imagery would be detrimental for brands that are consumed for symbolic/
expressive benefits, and hence, the investigated accessible luxury fashion companies do not
cater to obese consumers at all, and to overweight consumers only to a very limited extent.
While it is possible that thin people take a greater interest in accessible luxury fashion, and
that companies therefore adjust their assortments to reflect demand, the dearth of products
for heavier women is so pronounced that it seems incredible that differing consumer
preferences would be the only explanation for the composition of assortment of sizes. The
study thus provides the first quantitative evidence of brand building via customer rejection.

Intermediary Luxury Survey, London
% of women per

BMI class
% tops per BMI class

(n ¼ 302)
% of jeans per BMI class

(n ¼ 1,152)
% of total garments per BMI

class (n ¼ 1,454)

BMI 1 43 65 99 82
BMI 2 33 35 1 18
BMI 3 24 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100

Table I.
Distributions
of individuals
and garments

overweight classes

Accessible
luxury fashion
brand building

This study is a replication of a previous study (Aagerup, 2010). Both studies are similar
except for the tier of fashion investigated (fast fashion vs accessible luxury fashion), and the
results (no discrimination vs severe discrimination). Comparing the results of the two
studies provides an opportunity to draw some general conclusions regarding under which
criteria brand building via customer rejection is done, and when it is not (Table II).

Type of brand
Although all offerings represent all types of value (Holbrook, 2005), luxury is consumed to a
great degree because of what it means (Berry, 1994). It is therefore reasonable to assume
that accessible luxury fashion would rely to a much greater extent on symbolic brand value
than fast fashion does. However, fast fashion and accessible luxury fashion does not only
differ in the degree of symbolism to which consumers attribute value, but also in character.
Accessible luxury fashion is on the surface very similar to fast fashion. Companies in both
tiers produce and sell clothes that are bought by consumers to protect and adorn
themselves. There are however fundamental differences between the two types of fashion.
Fast fashion retailers started out supplying the general public with basic garments at
affordable prices (H&M, 2016; ZARA, 2016), and they have subsequently moved upward in
quality and style mimicking the styles of high fashion (Waddell, 2004). Accessible luxury
on the other hand draws on brand meanings and consumer motivations that originate in
traditional luxury, but employ mass-market manufacturing and brand management
methods to reach a price point that allows for larger audiences (Danziger, 2004; Silverstein
and Fiske, 2003). Thus, fast fashion constitutes low-end fashion that tries to convince the
consumer that the garments offered are fashionable despite their humble origin. Accessible
luxury fashion conversely attempts to convince her that the garments offered are real
luxury despite their affordable price. The value of luxury however still depends on a
perception of rarity and exclusivity (Catry, 2003), and the so-called democratization of
luxury (Shukla et al., 2016) is therefore democratic only in that it makes luxury accessible to
more people, not because its character has changed to a more inclusive one. If there is a
difference in brand ethos between fast fashion and accessible luxury fashion, the implication
is that the former is expected to cater to all, while the latter is expected not to. This is borne
out in the results of this paper.

Type of customers
The uniqueness of typical user imagery will increase if typical users form a homogenous
and distinct group. Since user imagery builds on generalizations of what someone who uses
a particular brand is like, brand personality should be influenced to a higher degree if the
users resemble each other. If they on the other hand are a diverse lot, the overall impression

Low probability of customer rejection:
fast fashion

High probability of customer rejection: accessible
luxury fashion

Type of brand Low symbolic value
Egalitarian brand ethos

High symbolic value
Elitist brand ethos

Type of
customers

Indistinct types
Heterogeneous group

Distinct types
Homogenous group

Type of
business

Weak visible link between typical users
and brand
Practically feasible to reject customers
Financially unfeasible to reject
customers

Strong visible link between typical users and
brand
Practically feasible to reject customers
Financially feasible to reject customers

Table II.
Criteria for brand
building via customer
rejection

JFMM
22,1

of the typical user imagery is less clear. If a brand has users that are distinctly different than
those of other brands, typical user imagery should have a greater effect on the brand than if
its users look like the customers of every other brand. The typical users’ distinctiveness can
thus be related to the uniqueness of brand associations in Keller’s (1993) conceptualization
of brand equity. Because accessible luxury fashion brands target more specific types of
people with regards to taste and fit, their customers tend to form a more homogenous and
distinct group than the people who buy fast fashion. The homogenous and distinct
character of the customers thus enables typical user imagery to function as a brand
personality influencer in accessible luxury fashion. Fast fashion on the other hand by
definition addresses a majority of the population. Because they come from all walks of life,
the typical users of fast fashion will therefore be heterogeneous and indistinct. It will as a
consequence be very difficult for consumers to make any generalizations regarding the
typical users of fast fashion brands, so if companies want to establish a brand personality
via user imagery they have no choice but to employ ideal user imagery via traditional
marketing communications.

Type of business
At first glance, it would appear that fast fashion consumption and the consumption of
accessible luxury fashion are equally conspicuous in nature. Consumers wear garments out
in the open regardless of fashion type, and companies in both tiers use logos. Fast fashion
garments are however generally not as attributable to a specific brand as high-end offerings.
Their logos are less prominent, and the mainstream styles of fast fashion also make brand
identification difficult. This means that if a consumer uses fast fashion to express herself the
effect of her typical user imagery on other consumers’ perception of brand personality is lost
because they cannot identify the particular brand.

The final consideration for deciding whether to discriminate customers because of their
undesirable user imagery is feasibility. The first question is one of practical feasibility; if a
company had a brand that was sensitive to typical user imagery, could it actually reject
customers? Fashion manufacturers can avoid heavier customers by not providing garments
that fit, so both fast and accessible luxury fulfills this requirement. When it comes to
financial feasibility, the picture is less uniform. For fast fashion, the business model hinges
on selling to the greatest number of people possible, so turning away customers is more
problematic. In fact, the plus-size segment is the fastest growing apparel segment and offer
brands and retailers substantial opportunity for market growth (Romeo and Lee, 2015). Fast
fashion relies on large volumes at low margins, so it would be harder for this fashion tier to
turn down any customer segment, especially a fast growing one.

In summation, the paper provides quantitative evidence that companies control
assortments to exclude undesirable users, and it delineates under which conditions this may
occur. This extends the theory of typical user imagery.

Implications
The implication of this study for practitioners is that it is possible to build brands via
customer rejection if the brand is symbolic/expressive, if it is conspicuously consumed, if it
targets narrow groups of people that are homogenous and distinct from other brand’s
customers, and if the company is active in an industry where elitist practices are acceptable, or
even desirable. However, the practice still entails turning away business, with the associated
opportunity costs. What is more, if a company erroneously believes it is a luxury brand, when
in fact its customers view it as something else, turning away customers can result in a
backlash. When consumers object to a company’s ethics, moral avoidance and lost sales can
occur (Ward and Dahl, 2014). In addition to the business case, there is also an ethical case
against customer rejection for brand building purposes. Rejecting customers with money in

Accessible
luxury fashion
brand building

hand because they are not attractive enough to buy a company’s products is ethically
problematic, especially when the products are socially desirable. This is not lost on society.
In addition to not offering garments in sizes that fit heavier physiques, fashion companies are
widely criticized for offering overweight and obese consumers only unfashionable basic
clothes (Scaraboto and Fischer, 2014), and this lack of fashionable clothes is a source of
frustration for heavier consumers, especially those with an interest in fashion (Gurrieri and
Cherrier, 2013). The types of brand value that thin and plus-size consumers derive from
fashion are not the same. Expressive and aesthetic desires often go unfulfilled by the apparel
that satisfies the functional needs of heavier consumers (Romeo and Lee, 2015). This leads to
a situation where heavier consumers shop for convenience while thinner consumers shop
for pleasure (Park et al., 2009). The results of this study would corroborate the notion of
companies discriminating overweight consumers with regards to style. Aagerups’ (2010)
findings in fast fashion do not show the same quantitative underrepresentation of garments
for overweight and obese consumers. However, if his results are juxtaposed to those of this
study, it becomes apparent that overweight and obese consumers are discriminated against,
not for basic clothes, but for fashionable clothes.

Limitations and future research
The study’s scope is limited, and one should therefore be cautious when generalizing its
results to other product categories or countries. What is more, the study is a survey.
As such, it is not strictly a causal study but one of correlation. It is therefore possible that the
demonstrated correlation between garments’ sizes and their availability in-store is affected
by confounding variables like BMI groups’ different levels of interest in fashion, by their
different spending power, or by geographical variables (like an underrepresentation of
overweight and obese women in London vs the countryside). It is also theoretically possible
that the investigated companies are very bad at marketing, and therefore fail to realize
that they have overlooked a large, and growing, market segment. The study’s results are
however so strikingly clear that even if some of the effect were due to extraneous variables,
it would be hard to disregard the poor match between overweight and obese women and the
clothes offered to them. For future research, it would be of interest to build on the results of
this exploration into brand building via customer rejection. Corroborating studies would
strengthen the validity of the results presented here, and given the limited geographical and
industrial scope of this study such validation would be welcome. The issue of brand
building via customer rejection is poised to become a hot topic. As brand communications
to an increasing extent moves out of the hands of business, and into the hands of individuals
that communicate consumer-to-consumer via social media, companies may feel pressured
into discriminatory practices. After all, if companies cannot control who is displayed
as a brand user via advertising, they may resort to controlling who is allowed to use the
brand in real life.

References

Aagerup, U. (2010), “To sell or not to sell: overweight users’ effect on fashion assortments”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 66-78.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 347-356.

Azuma, N. and Fernie, J. (2003), “Fashion in the globalized world and the role of virtual networks in
intrinsic fashion design”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 413-427.

JFMM
22,1

Banister, E.N. and Hogg, M.K. (2004), “Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive for
self-esteem”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 850-868.

Barone, M.J. and Roy, T. (2010), “Does exclusivity always pay off? Exclusive price promotions and
consumer response”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 121-132.

Berry, C.J. (1994), The Idea of Luxury – A Conceptual and Historical Investigation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

Bhardwaj, V. and Fairhurst, A. (2009), “Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion industry”,
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 165-173.

Big Fat Blog (2004), “Karl Lagerfeld’s ignorance”, available at: www.bigfatblog.com/node/841
(accessed April 14, 2015).

Bower, A.B. and Landreth, S. (2001), “Is beauty best? Highly versus normally attractive models in
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Brioschi, A. (2006), “Selling dreams – the role of advertising in shaping luxury brand meaning”,
in Schroeder, J.E. and Salzer-Mörling, M. (Eds), Brand Culture, 1st ed., Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 198-210.

Brownell, K.D. (2005), Weight Bias: Nature, Consequences, and Remedies, Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Catry, B. (2003), “The great pretenders: the magic of luxury goods”, Business Strategy Review, Vol.

No. 3, pp. 10-17.

Chevalier, M., Gutsatz, M. and Schwedt, G. (2012), Luxury Retail Management: How the World’s Top
Brands Provide Quality Product and Service Support, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Cohn, L.D. and Adler, N. (1992), “Female and male perceptions of ideal body shapes”, Psychology of
Women Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 69-79.

Copeland, L. (2011), “The anti-social network”, Slate, available at: www.slate.com/articles/double_x/
doublex/2011/01/the_antisocial_network.html (accessed June 15, 2017).

Danziger, P. (2004), “Let them eat cake: marketing luxury to the masses – as well as the classes”,
ProQuest Ebook Central, Dearborn Trade Publishing, Chicago, IL, February 15, 2016.

De Barnier, V., Falcy, S. and Valette-Florence, P. (2012), “Do consumers perceive three levels of luxury?
A comparison of accessible, intermediate and inaccessible luxury brands”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 623-636.

Demarest, J. and Allen, R. (2000), “Body image: gender, ethnic, and age differences”, Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 140 No. 4, pp. 465-472.

DeMers, J. (2013), “The top 7 social media marketing trends that will dominate 2014”, September 24,
available at: www.forbes.com/sites/jaysondemers/2013/09/24/the-top-7-social-media-marketing-
trends-that-will-dominate-2014/ (accessed December 4, 2014).

Devlin, K. (2009), “Top 10 reasons why the BMI is bogus”, available at: www.npr.org/templates/story/
story.php?storyId=106268439 (accessed June 22, 2015).

Durayappah, A. (2011), “Facebook enhances self-esteem, study finds”, Psychology Today, available at:
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/thriving101/201103/facebook-enhances-self-esteem-study-
finds (accessed July 13, 2014).

Feiereisen, S., Broderick, A.J. and Douglas, S.P. (2009), “The effect and moderation of gender
identity congruity: utilizing ‘real women’ advertising images”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26
No. 9, pp. 813-843.

Fontaine, K.R., Redden, D.T., Wang, C., Westfall, A.O. and Allison, D.B. (2003), “Years of life lost due to
obesity”, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 2, pp. 187-193.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.

Gripenberg, P. (2004), “H&M för snobbigt för Lagerfeld”, DN Ekonomi, available at: www.dn.se/
ekonomi/hm-for-snobbigt-for-lagerfeld-1.327243 (accessed May 17, 2010).

Accessible
luxury fashion
brand building

www.bigfatblog.com/node/841

www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/01/the_antisocial_network.html

www.forbes.com/sites/jaysondemers/2013/09/24/the-top-7-social-media-marketing-trends-that-will-dominate-2014/

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/thriving101/201103/facebook-enhances-self-esteem-study-finds

www.dn.se/ekonomi/hm-for-snobbigt-for-lagerfeld-1.327243

Gurrieri, L. and Cherrier, H. (2013), “Queering beauty: fatshionistas in the fatosphere”,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 276-295.

H&M (2016), “Our history”, available at: http://about.hm.com/en/About/facts-about-hm/people-and-
history/history.html (accessed May 30, 2016).

Hallett, E. (2013), “Do high-profile footballers help sell cars?”, BBC News, available at: www.bbc.com/
news/uk-england-21712657 (accessed May 24, 2016).

Harris, M.B., Harris, R.J. and Bochner, S. (1982), “Fat, four-eyed, and female: stereotypes of obesity,
glasses, and gender”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 503-516.

Hayes, J.B., Alford, B.L. and Capella, L.M. (2008), “When the goal is creating a brand personality, focus
on user imagery”, Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings of the Academy of
Marketing Studies (AMS), Vol. 13, pp. 31-31.

Hilton, P. (2013), “Abercrombie & Fitch CEO doesn’t want overweight people wearing their clothes”,
available at: http://perezhilton.com/cocoperez/2013-05-08-abercrombie-and-fitch-ceo-mike-
jeffries-plus-size-clothing-ban/?from=post-.VSdrMrokp74 (accessed April 10, 2015).

Holbrook, M.B. (2005), “Customer value and autoethnography: subjective personal introspection
and the meanings of a photograph collection”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 1,
pp. 45-61.

Hudders, L. (2012), “Why the devil wears Prada: consumers’ purchase motives for luxuries”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 609-622.

Janssen, I., Katzmarzyk, P.T. and Ross, R. (2002), “Body mass index, waist circumference, and health risk”,
Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 162 No. 18, pp. 2074-2079.

Johar, J.S. and Sirgy, M.J. (1991), “Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: when and
why to use which appeal”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-33.

Jönsson, O. (2009), “Lindex kollektion görs bara i S och M”, Aftonbladet, available at: www.aftonbladet.
se/wendela/article6097669.ab (accessed November 10, 2009).

Kapferer, J.-N. (1997), “Managing luxury brands”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 251-260.

Kapferer, J.-N. and Bastien, V. (2009), “The specificity of luxury management: turning marketing
upside down”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 311-322.

Kawamura, Y. (2007), Modeologi, Nordstedts Akademiska Förlag, Stockholm.

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (2000), “The brand report card”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 3-10.

Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity,
Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Ltd, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Keys, A. (1955), “Obesity and heart disease”, Journal of Chronicle Diseases, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 456-460.

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S. and Lee, D.-J. (2006), “Direct and
indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59
No. 9, pp. 955-964.

Kulturhuset Stockholm (2006), “Den förbjudna kroppen”, Kulturdepartementet (Ed.), Stockholm.

Larsson, I. (2005), Human Body Composition, Reference Data and Anthropometric Equations, The
Metabolic Syndrome and Risk, University of Gothenburg.

Levy, S.J. (1959), “Symbols for sale”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 117-124.

McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement of
the cultural meaning of consumer goods”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.

McCracken, G. (1988), Culture and Consumption – New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of
Consumer Goods, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.

Maslow, A.H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

14
JFMM
22,1

http://about.hm.com/en/About/facts-about-hm/people-and-history/history.html

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-21712657

http://perezhilton.com/cocoperez/2013-05-08-abercrombie-and-fitch-ceo-mike-jeffries-plus-size-clothing-ban/?from=post-.VSdrMrokp74

www.aftonbladet.se/wendela/article6097669.ab

Moore, H. (2013), “Oprah faced not just fashion retail racism, but size bias too”, The Guardian,
available at: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/oprah-fashion-retail-racism-
size-bias (accessed April 22, 2017).

National Obesity Observatory (2011), Adult Weight, June ed., NHS Solutions for Public Health, London.

Nellis, C. (2010), “Is it really ‘designer?’ From budget to couture, the lowdown on categories”, About.com,
available at: http://fashion.about.com/cs/stylebasics/a/pricepoints.htm (accessed July 28, 2010).

NHS (2015), “BMI for adults”, NHS, London, available at: www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/
BodyMassIndex.aspx-people (accessed September 23, 2015).

O’Cass, A. and McEwen, H. (2004), “Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 1 pp. 25-39.

Park, J., Nam, Y., Choi, K.M., Lee, Y. and Lee, K.H. (2009), “Apparel consumers’ body type and their
shopping characteristics”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3 pp. 372-393.

Parker, B.T. (2005), This Brand’s for Me: Brand Personality and User Imagery Based Self-Congruity,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Parker, B.T. (2009), “A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence”, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3 pp. 175-184.

Patterson, M. (1999), “Re-appraising the concept of brand image”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 8
No. 6 pp. 409-426.

Ritson, M. (2003), “Fashion chains’ savvy strategy to squeeze out larger shoppers”, Marketing, Vol. 7
No. 3, p. 16.

Romeo, L.D. and Lee, Y.-A. (2015), “Exploring apparel purchase issues with plus-size female teens”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 120-135.

Scaraboto, D. and Fischer, E. (2014), “Frustrated fatshionistas: an institutional theory perspective on
consumer quests for greater choice in mainstream markets”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 183-206.

Shah, N.R. and Braverman, E.R. (2012), “Measuring adiposity in patients: the utility of body mass index
(BMI), percent body fat, and leptin”, PLOS One, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 1-8.

Shukla, P., Banerjee, M. and Singh, J. (2016), “Customer commitment to luxury brands: antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 323-331.

Silverman, D. (2010), “David Silverman on qualitative research methods & natural data part”, youtube.
com, available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVnIO4vzXg8 (accessed June 15, 2012).

Silverstein, M.J. and Fiske, N. (2003), “Luxury for the masses”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 4,
pp. 48-57.

Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self concept in consumer behavior: a critical review”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-300.

Sirgy, M.J. and Samli, A.C. (1985), “A path analytic model of store loyalty involving self-concept, store
image, geographic loyalty, and socioeconomic status”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-291.

Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D. and Mangleburg, T. (2000), “Retail environment, self-congruity, and retail patronage:
an integrative model and a research agenda”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 127-138.

Smith, J.B. and Colgate, M. (2007), “Customer value creation: a practical framework”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-23.

Sotiropoulos, V. (2003), “Luxury fashion brands: the impact of embodied imagery on brand responses”,
master’s thesis, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal.

Steadman, M. (1969), “How sexy illustrations affect brand recall”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 15-19.

Stern, B.B. (2006), “What does brand mean? historical-analysis method and construct definition”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 216-223.

Accessible
luxury fashion
brand building

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/oprah-fashion-retail-racism-size-bias

http://fashion.about.com/cs/stylebasics/a/pricepoints.htm

www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/BodyMassIndex.aspx-people

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVnIO4vzXg8

Sutherland, J., Marshall, S. and Parker, B.T. (2004), “The real, ideal, and undesired self concepts and
their effects on viewer preferences: who do you love?”, paper presented at the American
Academy of Advertising, Baton Rouge, LA, March.

Thompson, P. (2013), “Abercrombie hit by a-list backlash over anti-fat ‘bias’: brand under fire again
after chief executive’s comment that its clothes are for ‘cool kids’ is republished”, Daily Mail
Online, April 14, available at: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342851/Abercrombie-Fitch-hit-
A-list-backlash-anti-fat-bias.html (accessed April 2, 2015).

Tynan, C., Mckechnie, S. and Chhuon, C. (2010), “Co-creating value for luxury brands”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1156-1163.

Veblen, T. (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class, Project Gutenberg.
Vermeir, I. and Sompel, D. (2014), “Assessing the what is beautiful is good stereotype and the influence

of moderately attractive and less attractive advertising models on self-perception, ad attitudes,
and purchase intentions of 8-13-year-old children”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 205-233.

Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (2004), “Measuring perceptions of brand luxury”, Brand Management,
Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 484-506.

Waddell, G. (2004), How Fashion Works – Couture, Ready-To-Wear & Mass Production, Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford.

Ward, M.K. and Dahl, D.W. (2014), “Should the devil sell Prada? Retail rejection increases aspiring
consumers’ desire for the brand”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 590-609.

Williams, P.J. (2003), “Straightedge subculture on the internet: a case-study on style display online”,
Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy Journal, Vol. 107, May, pp. 61-74.

Wooley, S.C. and Wooley, O.W. (1979), “Obesity and women: a closer look at the facts”, Women’s
Studies International Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 69-79.

ZARA (2016), “Our history”, available at: www.inditex.com/our_group/our_history (accessed
May 30, 2016).

Corresponding author
Ulf Aagerup can be contacted at: ulf.aagerup@hh.se

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

16
JFMM
22,1

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342851/Abercrombie-Fitch-hit-A-list-backlash-anti-fat-bias.html

www.inditex.com/our_group/our_history

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.

Article

Would You Deliver an Electric Shock
in 2015? Obedience in the Experimental
Paradigm Developed by Stanley Milgram in
the 50 Years Following the Original Studies

Dariusz Doliński

, Tomasz Grzyb

1
, Michał Folwarczny

1
, Patrycja Grzybała

1
,

Karolina Krzyszycha
1
, Karolina Martynowska

1
, and Jakub Trojanowski

Abstract

In spite of the over 50 years which have passed since the original experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram on obedience, these
experiments are still considered a turning point in our thinking about the role of the situation in human behavior. While ethical
considerations prevent a full replication of the experiments from being prepared, a certain picture of the level of obedience of
participants can be drawn using the procedure proposed by Burger. In our experiment, we have expanded it by controlling for the
sex of participants and of the learner. The results achieved show a level of participants’ obedience toward instructions similarly
high to that of the original Milgram studies. Results regarding the influence of the sex of participants and of the “learner,” as well as
of personality characteristics, do not allow us to unequivocally accept or reject the hypotheses offered.

Keywords

conformity, obedience, social influence

Experiments conducted by Milgram (1963, 1965), in which the

study participant is encouraged by the experimenter to admin-

ister an electric shock to another person, are generally consid-

ered to be one of the most important (if not the most important)

in the field of social psychology (e.g., Benjamin & Simpson,

2009; Blass, 2004). The entire series of experiments carried out

by Milgram (1974) demonstrated that under conditions of pres-

sure from an authority, the majority of people will carry out his

commands even when they are informed at the beginning that

they have the right to end their participation in the experiment

at any time, while the information placed on the device used in

emitting electric shocks states unequivocally that it can damage

the health of the “learner,” or even kill him.

Following the publishing of Milgram’s work (1963, 1965),

there were discussions in the psychological literature concern-

ing the ethical aspect of such experiments (e.g., Fischer, 1968;

Kaufmann, 1967). While a few replication experiments were

carried out in the 1970s in various countries (e.g., Kilham &

Mann, 1974; Shanab & Yahya, 1978), further work within this

paradigm was then halted.

Naturally, an attempt was made at finding various alterna-

tives to direct replications of the original Milgram studies. For

example, Slater et al. (2006) conducted an experiment in which

the “electric shock” was administered not to a living human but

rather a computer-generated avatar. Participants in this experi-

ment were seated in front of a screen displaying a picture of a

woman (“the learner”) reacting in real time to electric shocks.

Another idea for creating an ethically acceptable procedure to

examine obedience was to assign unpleasant descriptors to rel-

atively pleasant images (Haslam, Reicher, & Birney, 2014).

The researchers prepared a series of 30 pictures sorted on the

basis of their attractiveness (beginning from the least pleasant

to the most pleasant). The participants’ task consisted in

selecting from among four negative adjectives the one which

best described a given image. It should be noted that while the

pictures became increasingly attractive as the study contin-

ued, the adjectives remained negative, which led to increasing

discomfort on the part of the participants. In the opinion of the

experiment’s designers, this procedure was to evoke a dis-

comfort similar to that experienced by participants in the orig-

inal Milgram studies. It should be noted that we may have

serious doubts regarding the extent to which this procedure

really reflects the realism of the Milgram experiments and

whether the impact of authority on obedience is what has

1
Faculty of Psychology in Wrocław, SWPS University of Social Sciences and

Humanities, Wrocław, Poland

Corresponding Author:

Tomasz Grzyb, Faculty of Psychology in Wrocław, SWPS University of Social

Sciences and Humanities, Ostrowskiego 30b, 53-238 Wrocław, Poland.

Email: tgrzyb@swps.edu.pl

Social Psychological and
Personality Science
2017, Vol. 8(8) 927-933
ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550617693060
journals.sagepub.com/home/spp

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693060

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/spp

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1948550617693060&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-03-14

essentially been tested here. One thing is certain: Since the

original experiments by Stanley Milgram, we have yet to find

a successful way of reconciling realism with care for the

well-being of study participants.

A few years ago, however, Burger (2009) noted that in the

original studies by Milgram, a decisive majority of people who

pressed the 10th button (33 people of 40) could then be con-

vinced to press all of the remaining ones (26 people of 33).

He thus arrived at the conclusion that conducting an experi-

ment in which participants would be encouraged only to press

10 successive (and not 30 successive) buttons would, on the

one hand, significantly reduce their level of discomfort, while

on the other it would allow for a direct comparison of obedi-

ence in pressing the 10th button and, indirectly, that is through

performing an appropriate estimate and comparison of total

obedience. Burger asked himself the question of what level

of obedience would be recorded in the United States almost a

half-century after the Milgram experiments. He thus replicated

Experiment No. 5 in which the alleged learner reports heart

problems at the beginning of the experiment, and before the

10th shock is administered he demands the halting of the

experiment, again reminding those present of his health prob-

lems. It turned out that 70% of Americans could be induced
to press the 10th button, which led Burger (2009) to the conclu-

sion that “average Americans react to this laboratory situation

today much the way they did 45 years ago” (p. 9).

In our study, we decided to apply the empirical scheme of

Milgram (1974), Experiment 2 with Burger’s (2009) idea of

using only 10 buttons. It is worth emphasizing that Milgram

noted almost identical reactions by the participants in Experi-

ments No. 2 and No. 5 (the 10th button was pressed by 34 of

40 in Experiment 2, and 33 of 40 in Experiment 5, and while

button 30 was pressed by 25 participants in Experiment 2, and

26 in Experiment 5). Experiment 5 has been more frequently

replicated around the world than Experiment 2, but for the sole

reason that it is more spectacular and its results are more shock-

ing. From the perspective of estimating obedience levels, both

paradigms are, however, equally valid, while ethical considera-

tions argue for the choice of Experiment 2 in which people are

not encouraged to administer an electric shock to an individual

suffering from heart problems and who demands that his partic-

ipation in the experiment be concluded.

Our objective was to examine how high a level of obedience

we would encounter among residents of Poland. It should be

emphasized that tests in the Milgram paradigm have never been

conducted in Central Europe. The unique history of the coun-

tries in the region made the issue of obedience toward authority

seems exceptionally interesting to us. After World War II,

which began with Germany’s attack on Poland in 1939 and

concluded in 1945, the countries located in Eastern Europe

were made dependent on the Soviet Union, while the commu-

nist system was forced on them. One of the foundations of that

system was significant curbs on democracy and the demand of

strict obedience to authority. The official press used censorship

to develop an impression of the authorities’ infallibility and

moral legitimacy to ruling through the use of orders and

decrees. The primary and secondary school curricula also mar-

ginalized the role of such ideas as individual freedom and the

right to decide about one’s own affairs (Hodos, 1999; Naimark

& Gibianskii, 1997). However, the year 1989 marked a sea

change for the entire region. The understanding reached by the

communist authorities and anticommunist opposition initiated

a rapid series of changes across all of Eastern Europe. Free

press, democratic elections, and free speech became the norm

(Petersen, 2001; Rothschild and Wingfield, 2007). However,

in recent years we have observed a surge in the popularity of

the political party named “Law and Justice” [Pol.: “Prawo i

Sprawiedliwość”], which won an absolute majority in the last

parliamentary elections. In both the verbal arena and in its

actions, this party values governing with a strong hand rather

than freedom and democracy. Its efforts to limit the role of

democratic institutions and eliminate pluralism in the media

have met with extensive social approval (public opinion polls

show this party with support remaining stable at over 30%).
This all means that both the historical experiences of Poles

and the current political situation may have a complicated

and opaque impact on obedience levels. By the same toke,

we felt it would be interesting to replicate the Milgram

experiment in this country.

Besides, we also took advantage of introducing a factor into

the experimental design that had previously never been tested

to a satisfactory extent.

Discussion of Milgram’s experiments in the psychological

literature generally oscillates around consternation at the uni-

versal nature of people’s pliability. For example, emphasis is

placed on the fact that the sex of participants in experiments

on obedience is not a factor that differentiates their reactions

(see Blass, 1991, for review). When considering the role of sex

in experiments carried out in the Milgram paradigm, we turned

our attention to something entirely different. However, before

we say what that was, let us take a look at three typical descrip-

tions of Milgram’s experiment that can be found in the psycho-

logical literature.

1. “Participants sat in front of an imposing shock genera-

tor and were instructed to administer an electric shocks

to the learner for each incorrect answer” (Burger, 2009,

p. 1).

2. “Who among us was not surprised and sobered to learn

that 65% of his subjects delivered the full series of
painful and escalating shocks to an innocent partner?”

(Gilbert, 1981, p. 690).

3. “First, of course, is the unexpected enormity of the basic

findings themselves—that 65% of a sample of average
American adult men were willing to punish another per-

son with increasingly higher voltages of electric shock”

(Blass, 1991, p. 398).

We have no doubt that the intention of these and other

authors writing about experiments on obedience toward author-

ity is not to present a false picture of reality, but it is worth

noting that the confederate is defined here using words which

928 Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(8)

are devoid of biological sex (learner, “partner,” and “person”);

meanwhile, in nearly all studies on obedience carried out under

the Milgram paradigm the learner who was allegedly being

electrified was a man.

Existing empirical data thus demonstrates that study partici-

pants are inclined to administer a shock to a man sitting behind

a wall. However, it is not clear whether the behavior of partici-

pants would change in conditions in which the experimenter

instructed them to give the shock to a woman. Why do we think

that the sex of the learner in experiments performed in the Mil-

gram paradigm may be significant?

Because women are physically weaker and more susceptible

to physical violence than men, in accordance with cultural

norms they should be treated more favorably and gently than

men (Anderson, 2000; Muller-Funk, 2012). This assumption

is supported in the results of meta-analyses of experiments

regarding altruism, which show that women receive assistance

from others more often than men (Eagly & Crowley, 1986;

Piliavin & Unger, 1985), as well as meta-analyses of experi-

ments concerning aggression, which show that it is more preva-

lent in conditions where its target is a man than when

aggression should be directed at a woman (Eagly & Steffen,

1986). It could be assumed that results will be similar in the

case of experiments carried out in the Milgram paradigm.

Administering an electric shock is an obvious violation of the

norm to refrain from harming an innocent person. Shocking a

woman with electricity, however, is also an infringement of the

norm to treat people with greater leniency who belong to vul-

nerable groups. It is therefore a more urgent violation of cul-

tural norms than shocking a man with electricity. We also

think that the sex of the learner will be of particular signifi-

cance when the participants are males. Traditional European

and North American norms (collectively “Western”) assume

that men are obliged to behave nobly toward women, and thus

to avoid causing them harm, both in word and in deed (Genov-

ese, 2000; Girouard, 1981).

On the other hand, in some milieus there are cultural

norms which hold that men should treat women as their

inferiors and require obedience and pliancy (Crowell &

Burges, 1996; Fontes & McCloskey, 2011). This, in turn,

would mean that male participants in an experiment con-

ducted within the Milgram paradigm would not have any

problem with administering an electric shock to a woman

who made a mistake in answering.

The issue of the learner’s sex as a determinant of obedience

is complex and warrants empirical study. Meanwhile, we are

aware of only three experiments in which the learner was a

woman. In the first one (Constanzo, 1976), sex of the learner

was manipulated. No evidence was obtained for the influence

of this factor on the level of obedience. However, this study

was never published, the experiment was conducted four

decades ago, the procedure employed was significantly modi-

fied from the original one as applied by Milgram, and the

cohort of participants consisted exclusively of university stu-

dents, which may also have known one another. In the study

by Shanab and Yahya (1977), the participant and the learner

were always of the same sex, which did not allow for a deter-

mination of whether the sex of the person to be zapped with

electricity influences the obedience of participants. In the study

by Slater et al. (2006), participants were asked to put on 3-D

stereo glasses and then instructed to administer a shock to a vir-

tual woman appearing on the screen. The absence in the study

design of conditions in which the learner was a virtual man also

prevented evaluation of the role played by the sex of the person

inflicting pain (albeit virtual) in the degree of obedience.

The issue of the role that the student’s sex may play remains

therefore an open question, requiring empirical exploration. In

our experiment, we decided to include 80 participants (40 of

each sex). For an experiment performed within the Milgram

paradigm, this is an exceptionally large number. However,

we are aware that it may also be too small for a definitive

understanding of the role played in obedience toward authority

by sex of the participant and the sex of the learner.

Procedure

Participants were offered Polish złoty (PLN) 50 (equivalent to
around US$15) for about an hour’s time participating in psy-

chological research “dedicated to memory and learning.” They

were recruited in one of two ways. Some of them were

approached on the street, near the university. Others were

acquired with the help of students of the university, who

recruited participants from among their acquaintances who

were not students of that institution. Those eliminated from

the selection procedure were individuals who had taken a psy-

chology course as students, as well as those who responded to

a question about familiarity with psychological experiments

in a manner indicating they may have come across a descrip-

tion of the Milgram studies. People who had ever sought the

assistance of a psychiatrist or psychologist, who had experi-

enced some trauma, and those who had episodes of alcohol

or drug abuse in their history were all eliminated. The age

of participants ranged from 18 to 69 with M ¼ 27.36 (standard
deviation ¼ 11.07).

After arriving to the psychological laboratory of the univer-

sity, participants and the confederate (the latter pretending to

be a participant) completed two or three questionnaires.
1

Sub-

sequently, the experimenter explained that the study would

address the impact of punishments on learning and memory

processes and required a division into the roles of learner and

teacher. He gave the participants PLN 50 for their participation

in the experiment, and then requested that they draw lots for

their role by selecting one of two pieces of paper. Each of them

contained the word “teacher,” but the confederate (a man or a

woman depending on the experimental conditions) announced

that he or she had selected the paper with the word learner. The

experimenter asked the participants to sign an informed con-

sent form for participation in the experiment. The form stated

that the participant could interrupt participation in the study

at any moment. The experimenter additionally emphasized that

any decision to do so would not require the return of the com-

pensation paid for participation. The trio then proceeded to the

Doliński et al. 929

laboratory, where the experimenter showed the generator

(identical in appearance to the one used by Milgram) and

explained that the learner’s role would consist in learning by

heart associations between certain syllables, and then handed

the learner a piece of paper containing eight pairs of syllables

while leading him or her into a neighboring room (because

we did not have access to the original list of words used by Mil-

gram, we decided that the best approach would be to use sylla-

bles, as they are neutral in content). He then returned, handed

the teacher a list of 45 pairs of syllables written in a different

order than those on the paper received by the learner, and then

explained that the teacher’s task was to read one syllable and

wait for the learner’s response. If the response was correct, the

next syllable was to be read. If incorrect, the teacher was to

wait for the experimenter’s instructions. The experimenter also

demonstrated the device’s functioning, showing the teacher

that pressing particular levers would activate a shock of elec-

tricity measuring from 15 V to 450 V (a picture of the replica

of Milgram’s device as used in the experiment is located in the

Online Appendix). To demonstrate the functioning of the

device, the experimenter administered a shock of 45 V. Next,

the experimenter attached electrodes to the learner’s wrist in

the presence of the participant. The experimenter asked the

study participant to sit at the generator, and then himself sat

approximately 3 m from the participant. He then instructed the

participant to read the first syllable. The learner responded cor-

rectly, and the participant then read the following syllable. The

learner did not make a mistake in this and in the following

attempts, until the seventh syllable, when he erred. The experi-

menter instructed the teacher to press the first lever. Next, the

learner gave a few proper responses but then made a mistake

with the 10th syllable. The experimenter instructed the teacher

to press Lever No. 2. The next mistake occurred with Syllable

No. 13 and led to the instruction to press the third lever. Suc-

cessive impulses of electricity (following successive mistakes

that occurred at numbers 15, 18, 22, 24, 27, 31, and 34) resulted

in screams of increasing pain from the learner. These screams

were recorded and played back at appropriate moments. If the

teacher vacillated, the experimenter exhorted him or her using

similar prompts to those applied by Milgram (1974): “Please

continue,” “The experiment requires that you continue,” “It is

absolutely essential that you continue,” and “You have no other

choice, you must go on.” A note was made of the moment when

the participant refused further participation in the experiment, as

well as whether any doubts were expressed that required the

experimenter to deploy one of the aforementioned messages.

Just after the participant pressed the 10th button (or refused

to continue the experiment), the experimenter asked the ques-

tion “Do you think it hurts?” This was a way of making sure

that the participants were aware of the real pain being adminis-

tered to the person in the neighboring room. All the partici-

pants, save for one man who expressed doubt as to whether

the person sitting behind the wall was being shocked by elec-

tricity, responded in the affirmative way. The individual who

spoke of doubts was removed from the pool of results and

replaced by another man.

The experiment was conducted by one of two experimenters

(either a male in his mid-30s or one in his mid-50s). The role of

the learner was assigned to one of two women in their mid-20s

or one of two men in their mid-20s.

The experiment was conducted after receiving approval

from the departmental ethics commission (Decision No.

2014/E/02/2), which, following a thorough analysis and con-

sideration of the benefits that could result from the study, gave

its approval and oversaw how it was conducted. An important

element in the procedure was the detailed and painstaking

debriefing held individually with each participant following the

conclusion of the experiment. During this debriefing, partici-

pants were told of the details of the procedure, apologized for

being deceived at the start of the experiment as to its objectives

and course, and they received an explanation of why it was

done in that way. Each conversation was conducted by a qual-

ified clinical psychologist and lasted from several to several

dozen minutes. Participants were also informed that if they had

any further questions or concerns about the course of the study,

particularly if they felt any discomfort about their own partic-

ipation, that they should get in contact using a special telephone

number provided to them.

Results

Because initial analyses demonstrated that neither the manner

in which participants were recruited nor the person of the

experimenter, the female learner, or the male learner had any

impact on the structure of results, these factors were not taken

into account in further analysis. Dominant majority of the par-

ticipants pressed the 10th (the last in this variant of Milgram

experiment) lever. Exact number of participants who finished

on particular levers is shown in Figure 1.

The overall sample size is 80, and the observed proportion

of participants who pressed the 10th button is 90% (this is also

Figure 1. Number of participants who finished withdrawal from
experiment on particular levers.

930 Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(8)

the effect size). The 95% confidence interval (CI) is from
83.43% to 96.57%.

We also examined the impact of the learner’s sex on obedi-

ence. Results are displayed in Figure 2. It is worth remarking

that although the number of people refusing to carry out the

commands of the experimenter was 3 times greater when the

student was a woman, the small sample size does not allow

us to draw excessively far-reaching conclusions. (This result

was not statistically significant, Wald w2 ¼ .341, df ¼ 1, p ¼
.559, Cohen’s d ¼ .13.)

Because of the very low percentage of people resigning

from further participation in the study, we decided to also ana-

lyze the doubts raised by participants during the course of the

experiment. In Table 1, we have correlated information about

sex, age, and the moment of withdrawal (or expression of

doubt) of each person who did not demonstrate total obedience

toward the experimenter’s instructions.

Discussion

It is exceptionally interesting that in spite of the many years

which have passed since the original Milgram experiments, the

proportion of people submitting themselves to the authority of

the experimenter remains very high. The result of 90% obedi-
ence which we have achieved, 95% CI [83.43%, 96.57%], is
very close to the number of people pressing the 10th button

in the original Milgram studies. For example, in Milgram’s

(1974) Experiment No. 2, replicated in our study, 34 of 40 peo-

ple pressed Button No. 10 (85% of participants, the 95% CI
extends from 70.54% to 93.32%).

In the Milgram procedure, participant is issued with unam-

biguous orders from a person who is an authority, who leaves

no room for freedom of decision, does not suggest taking time

to think about reactions, or to select from among the options

available. In our experiment, participants demonstrated such

total obedience that we achieved a ceiling effect, making it

exceptionally difficult to demonstrate the influence of any

moderators of the dependent variable. From a certain perspec-

tive, it is worth drawing attention to the interesting proportion

of refusals to continue the experiment in the case of differences

in the learner’s sex. When it was a woman being “zapped,” par-

ticipants were 3 times more likely to withdraw from the experi-

ment (regardless of their own sex). However, the fact that only

10% of our participants failed to perform all of the experimen-
ter’s commands means that this difference is far from statisti-

cally significant.

Our results can thus not serve as grounds for definitive con-

clusions on the role of learner sex in the experiment—with all

certainty the results allow for the declaration neither that such

an impact is present nor that it is not present. However, in our

view the results are worth noting and may provide inspiration

for further studies in the paradigm.

That said, we are forced to admit that we did not confirm the

hypothesis that the sex of the person being shocked with elec-

tricity would influence the level of obedience displayed by par-

ticipants. Our search for factors differentiating the behaviors of

participants in the Milgram paradigm is consistent with the

long tradition of such studies (some of which have been

described in earlier fragments of this article). Searches have

also been conducted for the sources of obedience (apart from

“agentic state”) in the experimental situation itself (e.g., Col-

lins & Brief, 1995; Gilbert, 1981; Lutsky, 1995). However, it

should be remarked that the search for such mediating variables

generally concludes with the admission that the original

explanations proposed by Milgram are difficult to refute,

Figure 2. Sex of the “learner” and obedience.

Table 1. Information About Participants Expressing Doubts in the
Course of the Study.

Sex Age Number of Prompts Switch Number Decision

Male 35 4 5 Stop
Female 58 4 5 Stop
Female 21 4 6 Stop
Male 26 4 7 Stop
Female 24 4 7 Stop
Female 26 4 8 Stop
Female 44 4 9 Stop
Female 25 4 9 Stop
Male 19 1 8 Continue
Male 35 1 6 Continue
Male 26 1 9 Continue
Male 23 2 5, 9 Continue
Male 20 2 6 Continue
Female 25 1 9 Continue
Female 26 3 5 Continue
Female 33 1 8 Continue
Female 23 1 6 Continue
Female 24 1 9 Continue
Female 21 2 9 Continue
Female 20 1 6 Continue
Female 23 2 8 Continue

Doliński et al. 931

and—significantly—relatively stable over time. An exception

to this rule can be found in the studies of Reicher, Haslam, and

Miller (2014), indicating that participants in studies on

obedience can be motivated rather by appeals to science than

by orders. This is, however, only a more precise labeling of

the reason why participants carry out the commands of the

experimenter–scientist. In other words, we may expect that

contemporary replication experiments on obedience will also

refer in their explanations to agentic state as the primary

mechanism for explaining the behavior of study participants.

It would seem that the results of our experiment also provide

indirect support for this explanation.

In summary, it can be said that such a high level of

obedience among participants, very similar to that attained in

the 1960s in the original Milgram studies, is exceptionally

fascinating. Elms (1995) wrote that Milgram told his students

to ask important research questions and to gather data which

would be interesting even after 100 years had passed. Over

50 years have passed since the original Milgram experiments,

and it seems today we are headed in the right direction to con-

tinue in the next half-century seeking the sources of obedience

and compliance among study participants.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the BST research Grant No. 25/16/2015.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, author

ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of

the article.

Note

1. While conducting this study, we also planned to examine the role

played by individual factors. We took the following variables into

account: (1) Rotter’s (1966) locus of control because previous

study results on the role of that factor as a determinant of obedience

in the Milgram paradigm are inconsistent and inconclusive (see

Blass, 1991), (2) the role of empathy, which, while from the theo-

retical perspective would seem a rather obvious “candidate” for the

role of moderator of obedience, has only been directly examined—

to the best of our knowledge—by Burger (2009) who demonstrated

that empathy influences the verbal expression of doubt by partici-

pants during the experiment but did not show any link with the

actual level of obedience, and (3) only in respect of men—accep-

tance of the norms of the culture of honor (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle,

& Schwartz, 1996; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). We expected that men

who particularly strongly accept the rules of the culture of honor

would demonstrate very low rates of compliance in conditions

where the experimenter instructs them to zap a woman with

electricity. Because the results we achieved were inconclusive, and

this issue is not of fundamental importance to the main subject of

the article, we present both the scales applied and results on the

links between those personality characteristics and obedience in the

Online Appendix.

References

Anderson, M. L. (2000). Thinking about women: Sociological

perspectives in sex and gender. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Benjamin, L. T., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). The power of the situation:

The impact of Milgram’s obedience studies on personality and

social psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 12–19. doi:10.

1037/a0014077

Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience

experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interac-

tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398–413.

Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy

of Stanley Milgram. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey

today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11. doi:10.1037/a0010932

Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwartz, N. (1996).

Insult, aggression, and southern culture of honor: An

“experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 70, 945–960.

Collins, B., & Brief, D. (1995). Using person-perception vignette meth-

odologies to uncover the symbolic meanings of teacher behaviors in

the Milgram paradigm. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 89–106.

Constanzo, E. M. (1976). The effect of probable retaliation and sex

related variables on obedience. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Uni-

versity of Wyoming, Laramie.

Crowell, N. A., & Burges, A. W. (Eds.) (1996). Understanding vio-

lence against women. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A

meta-analytic of the social psychological literature. Psychological

Bulletin, 100, 283–308.

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior:

A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psy-

chological Bulletin, 100, 309–330.

Elms, A. C. (1995). Obedience in retrospect. Journal of Social Issues,

51, 21–31.

Fischer, C. T. (1968). Ethical issues in the use of human subjects.

American Psychologist, 23, 532.

Fontes, L., & McCloskey, K. (2011). A cultural perspective against

women. In C. Renzetti, J.L. Edelson, & R.K. Bergen (Eds.),

Sourcebook on violence against women (2nd ed., pp. 151–169).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Genovese, E. D. (2000). The chivalric tradition in the old south. The

Sewanee Review, 108, 188–205.

Gilbert, S. J. (1981). The role of the gradated series of shocks.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 690–695.

Girouard, M. (1981). A return to Camelot. The Wilson Quarterly, 5,

178–189.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Birney, M. E. (2014). Nothing by

mere authority: Evidence that in an experimental analogue of the

Milgram paradigm participants are motivated not by orders but

by appeals to science. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 473–488.

932 Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(8)

Hodos, G. H. (1999). The East-Central European region: An histori-

cal outline. Westport, Ireland: Praeger.

Kaufmann, H. (1967). The price of obedience and the price of knowl-

edge. American Psychologist, 22, 321–322

Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a

function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedi-

ence paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

29, 696–702.

Lutsky, N. (1995). When is “obedience” obedience? Conceptual and

historical commentary. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 55–65.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. doi:10.1037/

h0040525

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience

to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–76. doi:10.1177/

001872676501800105

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view.

New York, NY: Harper and Row

Muller-Funk, W. (2012). The architecture of modern culture: Towards

a narrative cultural theory. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Naimark, N., & Gibianskii, L. (Eds.) (1997). The establishment of

communist regimes in Eastern Europe, 1944–1949. Boulder and

Oxford, CA: Westview Press.

Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology

of violence in the south. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Petersen, R. D. (2001). Resistance and rebellion. Lessons from

Eastern Europe. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Piliavin, J.A., & Unger, R. K. (1985). The helpful but helpless female:

Myth or reality? In V.E. O’Leary, R.K. Unger, & B.S. Wallston

(Eds.) Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 149–189).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Miller, A. G. (2014). What makes a

person a perpetrator? The intellectual, moral, and methodological

arguments for revisiting Milgram’s research on the influence of

authority. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 393–408.

Rothschild, J., & Wingfield, N. M. (2007). Return to diversity. A polit-

ical history of East Central Europe since World War II (4th ed.).

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus

external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80

(Whole No. 609).

Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of obe-

dience. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 267–269.

Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker,

C., . . . Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A virtual reprise of the

Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PloS One, 1, e39.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.

Author Biographies

Dariusz Doliński (PhD, Warsaw University, Poland) is a Full Profes-

sor of Psychology in the SWPS University, Faculty of Psychology in

Wroclaw. He teaches social psychology and psychology of marketing.

He is the President of Polish Association of Social Psychology and

Editor-in-Chief of Polish Psychological Bulletin. He has published

12 books (including Techniques of social influence. The psychology

of gaining compliance) and more than 180 articles.

Tomasz Grzyb (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Psychology in the

SWPS University, Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw. He teaches sta-

tistics and methodology of research. He is a member of Ethics Com-

mittee of Polish Association of Social Psychology.

Michał Folwarczny is an MA student at the SWPS University,

Faculty

of Psychology in Wroclaw.

Patrycja Grzybała is an MA student at the SWPS University, Faculty

of Psychology in Wroclaw.

Karolina Krzyszycha is an MA student at the SWPS University,

Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw.

Karolina Martynowska is an MA student at the SWPS University,

Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw.

Jakub Trojanowski is an MA student at the SWPS University,

Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw.

Handling Editor: Simine Vazire

Doliński et al. 933

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 175 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages false
/GrayImageMinResolution 266
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Average
/GrayImageResolution 175
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages false
/MonoImageMinResolution 900
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Average
/MonoImageResolution 175
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/CreateJDFFile false
/Description << /ENU
>>
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(Common)
(1.0)
]
/OtherNamespaces [
<< /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >>
<< /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >>
<< /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >>
/FormElements true
/GenerateStructure false
/IncludeBookmarks false
/IncludeHyperlinks false
/IncludeInteractive false
/IncludeLayers false
/IncludeProfiles true
/MarksOffset 9
/MarksWeight 0.125000
/MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(CreativeSuite)
(2.0)
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK
/PageMarksFile /RomanDefault
/PreserveEditing true
/UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UseDocumentBleed false
>>
]
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

Order Now Talk to Us

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
Paper Formatting $05FREE
Cover Page $05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
Dedicated User Area $08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources

Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

Call Us +1 (877) 657-8180 Discuss Order Details Now

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.

Place an Order Start Chat Now

Wk 7 Discussion 1 Conformity

Discussion 1: Conformity

What Will You Get?

Premium Quality

Experienced Writers

On-Time Delivery

24/7 Customer Support

Complete Confidentiality

Authentic Sources

Moneyback Guarantee

Order Tracking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

Preferred Writer

Grammar Check Report

One Page Summary

Plagiarism Report

Free Features $66FREE

Our Services

Academic Writing

Professional Editing

Thorough Proofreading

Thorough Proofreading

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Check Out Our Sample Work

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

Share Your Requirements

Place Order & Deposit Funds

Release Payment to Your Writer

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades